ArticleUpdates in surgery2017
Ultrasonic energy device versus monopolar energy device in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of advanced bipolarAnnals of surgical treatment and research · 2025Article
- Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Transabdominal Preperitoneal, Open Mesh Plug and Open Tissue Inguinal Hernia Repair.World journal of surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) is gaining popularity as an approach to repairing of inguinal hernia. In many institutions, a disposable ultrasonic energy device is used in the TAPP repair procedure. However, the benefit and necessity of an ultrasonic device are unclear. We have switched to use of a reusable monopolar energy device, and we conducted a retrospective study comparing the surgical results obtained with each of the energy devices. Our study group comprised 241 adults who underwent TAPP repair for inguinal hernia between November 2012 and December 2014. We compared clinical characteristics, and surgical outcomes between patients in whom a disposable ultrasonic energy device was used (n = 116, U group) and those in whom a reusable monopolar energy device (n = 125, M group) was used. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in age, sex, body mass index, or hernia type. In cases of unilateral hernia, operation time was significantly longer in the U group than in the M group (71.4 vs. 59.4 min, respectively, p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in intraoperative blood loss (2.3 vs 3.9 ml, p = 0.329), postoperative morbidity (5.2 vs 4.0%, p = 0.663), or postoperative hospital stay (2.1 vs 2.2 days, p = 0.336). Our experience and increased competence with the monopolar energy device lead us to conclude that the ultrasonic energy device is unnecessary for simple TAPP repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28012148What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.