Comparison of Kugel and Lichtenstein Operations for Inguinal Hernia Repair: Results of a Prospective Randomized Study

Doğru, Osman; Gırgın, Mustafa; Bülbüller, Nurullah; Çetinkaya, Ziya; Aygen, Erhan; Camcı, Celaletdin

doi:10.1007/s00268-005-0408-z

Cited by 33 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…42,[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] One of the included trials 53 used a quasi-random method to allocate participants to interventions (i.e. order of admittance).…”

Section: Results Of the Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…61 Another trial had a high risk of selective enrolment of participants as randomisation was done according to order of admittance. 53 In the remaining trials, there was insufficient information on sequence generation and allocation to make a reliable judgement. 54,55,57,60,63 DOI: 10.3310/hta19920 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2015 VOL.…”

Section: Selection Bias (Adequate Sequence Generation/allocation Concmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only two trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, with adequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and blinding of outcome assessor. 52,56 Two trials were judged at high risk of selection bias because of the inadequate randomisation process, 53,59 whereas one trial was judged at unclear risk of selection bias because not enough information was provided on allocation concealment. 61 One trial 51 did not blind participants or outcome assessors, and was considered at high risk of performance and detection biases.…”

Section: Clinical Effectiveness Of Open Mesh Repairsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation

Sharma

Boyers

Scott

et al. 2015

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 13/134/01. The contractual start date was in September 2014. The draft report began editorial review in March 2015 and was accepted for publication in July 2015. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health. Published by the...

show abstract

“…42,[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] One of the included trials 53 used a quasi-random method to allocate participants to interventions (i.e. order of admittance).…”

Section: Results Of the Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Selection Bias (Adequate Sequence Generation/allocation Concmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clinical Effectiveness Of Open Mesh Repairsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation

Sharma

Boyers

Scott

et al. 2015

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is almost unanimity regarding the efficacy of tension free mesh repair of the posterior wall of inguinal canal by Lichtenstein and Schulman's method of open inguinal hernia repair. It is easy to perform and has very low recurrence [7][8][9] and complication rates. Early return to activity with minimum pain and discomfort is the norm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Lichtenstein series, the recurrence rate was <1% to 5%. [7][8][9] In a series of 130 patients operated with MNM by Felix OO et al 10 The incidence of scrotal hematoma was 7.69%; superficial wound infection was 4.61 and no recurrence in 6 months of follow up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of open inguinal hernia repair by mosquito net mesh versus polypropylene mesh

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open Preperitoneal Techniques versus Lichtenstein Repair for elective Inguinal Hernias

Willaert

Bacquer

Rogiers

et al. 2012

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of Kugel and Lichtenstein Operations for Inguinal Hernia Repair: Results of a Prospective Randomized Study

Abstract: Kugel herniorraphy is a minimally invasive method and as safe as the Lichtenstein hernia repair technique, with similar complication rates.

Cited by 33 publications

References 32 publications

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open mesh repairs in adults presenting with a clinically diagnosed primary unilateral inguinal hernia who are operated in an elective setting: systematic review and economic evaluation

Study of open inguinal hernia repair by mosquito net mesh versus polypropylene mesh

Open Preperitoneal Techniques versus Lichtenstein Repair for elective Inguinal Hernias

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About