Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24973058›Full record

ArticleSurgery today2015

Single-incision totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: our initial 100 cases and comparison with conventional three-port laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.

Masaki Wakasugi, Toru Masuzawa, Mitsuyoshi Tei, Takeshi Omori, Shigeyuki Ueshima, Masayuki Tori, Hiroki Akamatsu

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgery today, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Masaki WakasugiDepartment of Surgery, Osaka Police Hospital, 10-31 Kitayama-cho, Ten-nouji-ku, Osaka, 543-0035, Japan, wakasugi@oph.gr.jp.
Toru Masuzawa
Mitsuyoshi Tei
Takeshi Omori
Shigeyuki Ueshima
Masayuki Tori
Hiroki Akamatsu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (SILS-TEP) and conventional three-port totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair.

methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 137 patients (SILS-TEP, 100; conventional TEP, 37) scheduled to undergo elective inguinal hernia from January 2011 to July 2013 at Osaka Police Hospital.

resultsThere were no significant differences in the patient demographics. There were no significant differences in the length of the operation between the two groups (SILS-TEP group, 93 min vs. conventional TEP group, 92 min for unilateral hernias, p = 0.8; SILS-TEP group, 142 min vs. conventional TEP, 128 min for bilateral hernias, p = 0.4). The postoperative hospital stay, total medical charge for the hospital stay and the numerical rating scale before and 3 months after surgery were comparable in both groups. Two cases treated by SILS-TEP repair were converted to conventional three-port TEP repair (one case) and mesh-plug method (one case). The postoperative complications were comparable in both groups, and these were managed conservatively. One recurrence (2 %, 1/37) developed in the conventional TEP group, compared with 0 recurrences (0/100) in the SILS-TEP group.

conclusionsSILS-TEP repair seems to be safe and feasible, with no significant differences in the total medical charges for the hospital stay or the postoperative pain score 3 months after surgery compared with conventional three-port TEP repair.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24973058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.