ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery
Single incision multiport versus conventional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: A matched comparison.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Meta‑analysis of single-incision laparoscopic versus multi-trocar laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.Updates in surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Current status of single-port versus multi-port approach in laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair: an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Two-port (single incision plus one port) versus single-port laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia: a retrospective comparative study.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic inguinal hernia repair: is the new Da Vinci single port platform providing any benefit?Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Robotic single-port surgery: Preliminary experience in general surgery.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2022Article
- Analysis on Influencing Factors of Recurrence after Indirect Inguinal Hernia Laparoscopic Surgery.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery: From past to the future.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Review
- A comparison of the oxidative stress response in single-incision laparoscopic versus multi-trocar laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe popularity of single-incision procedures is on the rise as wound cosmesis is increasingly being seen as an important body image-related outcome. In this study, we assess the potential benefits of single-incision multiport laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal (S-TEP) without using specialised ports or instruments and compare the same with the conventional laparoscopic TEP (C-TEP) surgery in terms of operative time, post-operative pain, complications, cost and cosmesis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a prospective case-matched study of the patients undergoing S-TEP versus C-TEP from June 2014 to December 2015.
resultsEach group had 36 patients. The two groups were comparable in the clinical characteristics. The mean duration of surgery for a unilateral hernia in C-TEP and S-TEP was 45.13 ± 10.58 min and 72.63 ± 15.23 min, respectively. The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score for pain was significantly higher in S-TEP group at post-operative day (POD) 0 and 1. However, at POD 7, there was no significant difference between the groups. At 1st and 6-week post-surgery, the cosmetic results were significantly better in S-TEP group as compared to C-TEP, however, at 6 months, the scar was highly acceptable in both treatment groups.
conclusionS-TEP, using conventional laparoscopic instruments, is safe and feasible even in resource challenged setting. However, there is a need to review the indications and advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, as no difference in cosmetic outcome by VAS score in S-TEP versus conventional laparoscopic arm seen by the end of 1 month.
Identifiers
What 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.