Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of inguinal hernia: early results

Open access
Lawrence, Kate, McWhinnie, Douglas, Goodwin, Alex, Doll, Helen, Gordon, Andrew, Gray, Alistair, Britton, Julian, Collin, Jack·1995·BMJ

Abstract

Objective : To establish the safety, short term outcome, and theatre costs of transabdominal laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia performed as day surgery. Design : Randomised controlled trial. The control operation was the two layer modified Maloney darn. Setting : Teaching hospital and district general hospital. Subjects : 125 men randomised to laparoscopic or open repair of inguinal hernia. Outcome measures : Morbidity, postoperative pain and use of analgesics, quality of life, and theatre costs. Outcome was assessed by questionnaires administered to patients daily for 10 days and at six weeks postoperatively and by outpatient review at six weeks. Return to normal activity was assessed by questionnaire at three months. Results : One vascular complication (2%) occurred in the group that had open repair. Seven complications (12%) including vessel injury and early recurrence arose in the group that had laparoscopic repair (difference in complication rate 10% (95% confidence interval 4% to 18%; P=0.02). Pain scores and quality of life assessed by the short form 36 showed a significant benefit to the group that had laparoscopic repair in the early postoperative period. Return to normal activity was not significantly different between the two groups. Total theatre costs were higher in the group that had laparoscopic repair (mean cost for laparoscopic repair pounds sterling850 (pounds sterling622 to pounds sterling1078); mean cost for open repair pounds sterling268 (pounds sterling245 to pounds sterling292)). Conclusions : Because of the greater complication rate and higher theatre costs forlaparoscopic repair and the patient outcome preferences expressed, the results of larger trials of clinical and cost effectiveness using recurrence as the primary outcome measure should be known before laparoscopic herniorrhaphy is widely adopted.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.311.7011.981

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Lawrence, K., McWhinnie, D., Goodwin, A., Doll, H., Gordon, A., Gray, A., Britton, J., & Collin, J.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1995-10-14
Volume
311
Issue
7011
Pages
981-985
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2059798544
Cited by
190
References
3
FWCI
19.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of inguinal hernia: early results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.311.7011.981
The paper
Lawrence, K., McWhinnie, D., Goodwin, A., Doll, H., Gordon, A., Gray, A., Britton, J., & Collin, J. (1995). Randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of inguinal hernia: early results. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7011.981

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.