Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Low Recurrence Rate After Laparoscopic (TEP) and Open (Lichtenstein) Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial With 5-Year Follow-Up

Eklund, Arne S., Montgomery, Agneta K., Rasmussen, Ib C., Sandbue, Rune P., Bergkvist, Leif Å., Rudberg, Claes R.·2009·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare a laparoscopic (totally extraperitoneal patch (TEP)) and an open technique (Lichtenstein) for inguinal hernia repair regarding recurrence rate and possible risk factors for recurrence. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic hernia repair has been introduced as an alternative to open repair. Short-term follow-up suggests benefits for those patients operated with a laparoscopic approach compared with open techniques; ie, less postoperative pain and a shorter convalescence period. Long-term results, however, are less well known. METHODS: The study was conducted as a multicenter randomized trial with a 5-year follow-up. A total of 1512 men aged 30 to 70 years, with a primary unilateral inguinal hernia, were randomized to either TEP or Lichtenstein repair. RESULTS: Overall, 665 patients in the TEP group and 705 patients in the Lichtenstein group were evaluable. The cumulative recurrence rate was 3.5% in the TEP group and 1.2% in the Lichtenstein group (P = 0.008). Test for heterogeneity revealed significant differences between individual surgeons. The exclusion of 1 surgeon, who was responsible for 33% (7 of 21) of all recurrences in the TEP group, lowered the cumulative recurrence rate to 2.4% in this group, which was not statistically different from that of the Lichtenstein group. CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence rate for both TEP and Lichtenstein repair was low. A higher cumulative recurrence rate in the TEP group was seen at 5 years. Further analysis revealed that this could be attributable to incorrect surgical technique.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e31819255d0

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
Eklund, A. S., Montgomery, A. K., Rasmussen, I. C., Sandbue, R. P., Bergkvist, L. Å., & Rudberg, C. R.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2009-01
Volume
249
Issue
1
Pages
33-38
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984944068
Cited by
191
References
1
FWCI
8.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Low Recurrence Rate After Laparoscopic (TEP) and Open (Lichtenstein) Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial With 5-Year Follow-Up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31819255d0
The paper
Eklund, A. S., Montgomery, A. K., Rasmussen, I. C., Sandbue, R. P., Bergkvist, L. Å., & Rudberg, C. R. (2009). Low Recurrence Rate After Laparoscopic (TEP) and Open (Lichtenstein) Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial With 5-Year Follow-Up. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31819255d0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.