Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 185

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

A Meta-Analysis of Surgical Morbidity and Recurrence After Laparoscopic and Open Repair of Primary Unilateral Inguinal Hernia

O'Reilly, Elma A., Burke, John P., O'Connell, P. Ronan·2012·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

In Brief Background: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR), using a transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) or totally extraperitoneal (TEP) technique, is an alternative to conventional open inguinal hernia repair (OIHR). A consensus on outcomes of LIHR when compared with OIHR for primary, unilateral, inguinal hernia has not been reached. Objectives: Perform a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OIHR and LIHR for primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Outcomes were hernia recurrence and surgery-related morbidity. Methods: A comprehensive search for published RCTs comparing LIHR with OIHR for primary, unilateral, and inguinal hernia was performed. Reviews of each study were conducted and data were extracted. Random effect methods were used to combine data. Results: Data were retrieved from 27 RCTs describing 7161 patients. An increased risk in hernia recurrence existed when LIHR was compared with OIHR (relative risk [RR] = 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.26–3.37, P = 0.004). TAPP had equivalent recurrence (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.78–1.68, P = 0.491) but TEP had increased recurrence of risk (RR = 3.72, 95% CI = 1.66–8.35, P = 0.001) relative to OIHR. LIHR was associated with greater perioperative complication risk than OIHR (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.04–1.42, P = 0.015). TAPP (RR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.18–1.84, P < 0.001) but not TEP (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.85–1.30, P = 0.667) was associated with this increased complication risk. LIHR was associated with reduced risk of chronic pain (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.51–0.87, P = 0.003) and chronic numbness (RR = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.12–0.58, P < 0.001) relative to OIHR. Conclusions: For primary unilateral inguinal hernia, TEP is associated with an increased risk of recurrence relative to OIHR but TAPP is not. TAPP is associated with increased risk of perioperative complications relative to OIHR. LIHR has a reduced risk of chronic pain and numbness relative to OIHR. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR), using a transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) or totally extraperitoneal (TEP) technique, is an alternative to open inguinal hernia repair (OIHR). In this meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing OIHR and LIHR for primary unilateral inguinal hernia, TEP is associated with an increased risk of recurrence relative to OIHR, but TAPP is not. LIHR has a reduced risk of chronic pain and numbness relative to OIHR.

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.0b013e31824e96cf

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 185

Metadata

Authors
O'Reilly, E. A., Burke, J. P., & O'Connell, P. R.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2012-05
Volume
255
Issue
5
Pages
846-853
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010452492
Cited by
185
References
1
FWCI
3.12
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: A Meta-Analysis of Surgical Morbidity and Recurrence After Laparoscopic and Open Repair of Primary Unilateral Inguinal Hernia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31824e96cf
The paper
O'Reilly, E. A., Burke, J. P., & O'Connell, P. R. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of Surgical Morbidity and Recurrence After Laparoscopic and Open Repair of Primary Unilateral Inguinal Hernia. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31824e96cf

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.