Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26162422›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2016

Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

Sujith Wijerathne, Narendra Agarwal, Ahmad Ramzi, Dino H Liem, Wee B Tan, Davide Lomanto

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  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

6 authors.

Sujith WijerathneDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore. sujithwijerathne@gmail.com.
Narendra AgarwalDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Ahmad RamziDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Dino H LiemDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Wee B TanDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Davide LomantoDepartment of Surgery, Minimally Invasive Surgical Centre, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe advantage of single-port total extra-peritoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair over the conventional technique is still debatable. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of TEP inguinal hernia repair using either a single-port or conventional surgical technique, in two blind randomized groups of patients.

methodsIn this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial, 100 patients undergoing surgery for unilateral inguinal hernia were randomized into two groups: One group underwent conventional laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair, while the other was selected for single-port TEP repair. Primary endpoint is postoperative pain (VAS), while secondary endpoints are recurrence, chronic pain and complications.

resultsFrom 100 patients, 49 underwent single-port hernia TEP repair, 50 had conventional three-port TEP hernia repair, and one patient declined to participate after randomization. The two groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics and operative findings. Mean operative time was 49.1(±13.8) min in the conventional group and 54.1(±14.4) min in the single-port group (p = 0.08). Mean hospital stay was 19.7(±5.8) h in the conventional group and 20.5(±6.4) h in the single-port group (p = 0.489). No major complications and no recurrence reported at 11-month follow-up. No statistically significant difference noted in postoperative pain between the two groups at regular intervals.

conclusionsThe outcomes after laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair with a single-port device are similar but not superior to the conventional technique.

Indexed as

LaparoscopesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDouble-Blind MethodEquipment DesignFemaleHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePeritoneumProspective StudiesInguinal herniaRandomized trialSingle portTotal extra-peritoneal (TEP)

Identifiers

PMID26162422

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.