Crossmark

A retrospective comparative study of the enhanced view-totally extraperitoneal technique versus the traditional totally extraperitoneal technique in managing recurrent inguinal hernias

Crossref DOI link: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-03105-2

Published Online: 2025-08-09

Update policy: https://doi.org/10.1007/springer_crossmark_policy

Authors

Yilmaz, Abdullah Hilmi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9920-3902
Ulutas, Mehmet Esref https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9206-4348
License Information

Text and Data Mining valid from 2025-08-09

Version of Record valid from 2025-08-09
More Information

Article History

Received: 28 February 2025

Accepted: 18 July 2025

First Online: 9 August 2025

Declarations

:

: Not applicable.

: The authors would like to affirm that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

: All procedures conducted in studies involving human participants adhered to the ethical standards set forth by the institutional research committee, as well as the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments or other comparable ethical guidelines. The University of Health Sciences at Van Training and Research Hospital’s ethics committee granted approval for the study on November 29, 2024.

: Written informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in this study, ensuring that the ethical standards of research were upheld.

Document is current

Any future updates will be listed below