Comparison of Early Postoperative Outcomes Between Totally Extraperitoneal and Lichtenstein Repair of Inguinal Hernia: A Prospective Randomized Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Surgical repair of inguinal hernia is among the most commonly performed surgical interventions in general surgery clinics, with minimal postoperative complications, less pain, and maximum cosmetic results. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent Lichtenstein repair (LR), which is currently the most commonly used open surgical procedure to repair inguinal hernias, and laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair with regard to postoperative cosmesis, patient satisfaction, pain, and inflammatory response. Patients and Methods:The study consisted of male patients 18–65 years of age, who were operated for inguinal hernia with two different methods between February 2022 and January 2023 in the general surgery clinic of Elazig Fethi Sekin City Hospital. C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell, and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels were observed to evaluate the inflammatory response in all patients. Visual Analog Scale and Verbal Rating Score systems were used to monitor the response to pain in the postoperative period. In addition, both groups were evaluated for patient satisfaction in cosmetic terms using the Vancouver Scar Scale and the Modified Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale. Results:Postoperative pain sensation in the TEP group was found to be significantly lower compared to the LR group. In terms of inflammatory response, IL-6 and CRP levels were found to be significantly higher in the LR group on postoperative day 1 and 2. Satisfaction with the cosmetic appearance of the surgical scar was significantly higher in the TEP group. Conclusion:TEP, which is a laparoscopic hernia repair method, is a safe surgical technique that can be preferred, especially in patients with less postoperative pain and higher cosmetic expectations. In terms of inflammatory response, significant difference is also in favor of TEP repair.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".