RETRACTED: A new technique for extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia

A review of the current concerns about misconduct in medical sciences publications and the consequences

BACKGROUND

In the new era of publication, scientific misconduct has become a focus of concern including extreme variability of plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, authorship issues, peer review manipulation, etc. Along with, overarching theme of "retraction" and "predatory journals" have emphasized the importance of studying related infrastructures.

METHODS

Information used in this review was provided through accessing various databases as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Nature Index, Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch. Original researches, expert opinions, comments, letters, editorials, books mostly published between 2010 and 2020 were gathered and categorized into three sections of "Common types of misconduct"," Reasons behind scientific misconduct" and "Consequences". Within each part, remarkable examples from the past 10 years cited in Retraction Watch are indicated. At last, possible solution on combating misconduct are suggested.

RESULTS

The number of publications are on the dramatic rise fostering a competition under which scholars are pushed to publish more. Consequently, due to several reasons including poor linguistic and illustration skills, not adequate evaluation, limited experience, etc. researchers might tend toward misbehavior endangering the health facts and ultimately, eroding country, journal/publisher, and perpetrator's creditability. The reported incident seems to be enhanced by the emergence of predatory with publishing about 8 times more papers in 2014 than which is in 2010. So that today, 65.3% of paper retraction is solely attributing to misconduct, with plagiarism at the forefront. As well, authorship issues and peer-review manipulation are found to have significant contribution besides further types of misconduct in this duration.

CONCLUSION

Given the expansion of the academic competitive environment and with the increase in research misconduct, the role of any regulatory sector, including universities, journals/publishers, government, etc. in preventing this phenomenon must be fully focused and fundamental alternation should be implemented in this regard.

Outcomes of laparoscopic incarcerated inguinal hernia repair in children

AIM

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) is gaining widespread acceptance, but its role in the management of incarcerated cases is not well outlined. This review analyses the outcomes of laparoscopic repair of incarcerated inguinal hernia in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Literature was searched on PubMed® using terms 'laparoscopic', 'incarcerated', 'inguinal', 'hernia' and 'children'. Age, sex, side, sac content, operative technique, follow-up period, complication and recurrence rate were analysed.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles with 689 paediatric incarcerated inguinal hernias were identified between 1998 and 2018. Median age of patients was 22.4 months (2 weeks-16 years; M:F = 2.2:1). Side was mentioned in n = 576: n = 398 (69.1%) right and n = 178 (30.9%) left. In n = 355 (51.5%) manual reduction and delayed surgery (MRDS), in n = 34 (4.9%) manual reduction in general anaesthesia (MRGA) followed by emergency LHR and in n = 300 (43.5%) intraoperative reduction (IOR) was necessary. Incarcerated contents were documented in n = 68: intestine n = 36 (52.9%), ovary n = 14 (20.6%), omentum n = 11 (16.2%), appendix n = 5 (7.4%) and Meckel's diverticulum n = 2 (2.9%). Among the n = 18 girls in IOR group, n = 14 (77.8%) had ovaries incarcerated. For LHR, the hook method was used in 376 (54.6%) and purse-string suture in 313 (45.4%), with two conversions in IOR group. Mean followup was 15 months (3-80 months), with one (0.15%) testicular atrophy, and 4 (0.58%) recurrences in MRDS and 1 (0.15%) in IOR. All five cases were closed with pursestring technique. Total recurrence rate was 0.73%; significantly higher (P = 0.014) with pursestring (n = 5, 1.6%) than with the hook (none).

CONCLUSION

Hook and purse-string methods are equally popular in LHR for paediatric incarcerated hernias, with 50% hernia reductions possible at the time of surgery. Recurrence rate is low and comparable with non-incarcerated hernias; however, it is significantly higher in purse-string method than hook technique.

A systematic review and meta-analysis concerning single-site laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure for pediatric inguinal hernia and hydrocele

BACKGROUND

Single-site laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SLPEC) of hernia sac/processus vaginalis has been widely performed for repair of inguinal hernia/hydrocele in children. However, a variety of surgical instruments and techniques were used, and significant differences existed among the SLPEC reports.

METHODS

A literature search was performed for all available studies concerning SLPEC for pediatric inguinal hernia/hydrocele in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The surgical details and operative outcomes were pooled and analyzed with software StataSE 12.0.

RESULTS

49 studies fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria of this review and 37 studies were finally included in the meta-analysis. The mean incidence of CPPV was 29.1% (range 5.73-43.0%). The average of mean operative time was 19.56 min (range 8.30-41.19 min) for unilateral SLPEC and 27.23 min (range 12.80-48.19 min) for bilateral SLPEC. The total incidence of injury, conversion, recurrence, hydrocele formation, knot reaction, severe pain, and scrotal swelling was 0.32% (range 0-3.24%), 0.05% (range 0-0.89%), 0.70% (range 0-15.5%), 0.23% (range 0-3.57%), 0.33% (range 0-3.33%), 0.05% (range 0-4.55%), and 0.03% (range 0-1.52%), respectively. There was no development of testicular atrophy. Subgroup analyses showed an inverse correlation between the injury incidence and adoption of assisted forceps, hydrodissection, and blunt puncture device, between the conversion rate and adoption of hydrodissection, between the recurrence/hydrocele incidence and adoption of assisted forceps, hydrodissection, nonabsorbable suture and the preventive measures to avoid ligating the unnecessary subcutaneous tissues, and between the rate of knot reaction and adoption of assisted forceps, hydrodissection, and the preventive measures.

CONCLUSIONS

SLPEC was a well-developed procedure for repair of pediatric inguinal hernia/hydrocele. Adoption of assisted forceps, hydrodissection, nonabsorbable suture, and the preventive measures to avoid ligating the unnecessary subcutaneous tissues could significantly reduce the intra- and postoperative complications.