Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29362907›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2018

Prospective randomized study comparing single-incision laparoscopic versus multi-trocar laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair at 2 years.

Luca Cardinali, Claudia Hannele Mazzetti, Anny Cadenas Febres, Deborah Repullo, Jean Bruyns, Giovanni Dapri

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Robotic single-port surgery: Preliminary experience in general surgery.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2022
    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.

Luca CardinaliDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, European School of Laparoscopic Surgery, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 322, Rue Haute, Brussels, Belgium.
Claudia Hannele MazzettiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, European School of Laparoscopic Surgery, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 322, Rue Haute, Brussels, Belgium.
Anny Cadenas FebresDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, European School of Laparoscopic Surgery, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 322, Rue Haute, Brussels, Belgium.
Deborah RepulloDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, European School of Laparoscopic Surgery, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 322, Rue Haute, Brussels, Belgium.
Jean BruynsDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, European School of Laparoscopic Surgery, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 322, Rue Haute, Brussels, Belgium.
Giovanni DapriDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, European School of Laparoscopic Surgery, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 322, Rue Haute, Brussels, Belgium. giovanni@dapri.net.ORCID 0000-0001-7982-283X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInguinal hernia repair via multi-trocar laparoscopy (MTL) has gained an increasing popularity worldwide. Single-incision laparoscopy (SIL) has been introduced to reduce the port-related complications and to improve the cosmetic results. The authors report a prospective randomized study comparing SIL versus MTL totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair.

methodsBetween January 2013 and May 2015, 113 versus 97 patients were prospectively randomized between SILTEP and MTLTEP. Perioperative, short-term, and mid-term outcomes have been assessed. The primary endpoint was the mid-term outcomes (late postoperative complications, late inguinal hernia recurrence, surgical and cosmetic satisfactions). Secondary endpoints were perioperative outcomes (operative time, mesh fixation, operative complications, postoperative pain, and hospital stay) and short-term outcomes (early postoperative complications, early inguinal hernia recurrence, and days to return to normal activities).

resultsAfter a mean follow-up of 27 ± 8 months, a statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of mean operative time for both unilateral and bilateral inguinal hernia repair (p = 0.016; p = 0.039) and cosmetic satisfaction (p = 0.003).

conclusionPerioperative, short-term, and mid-term outcomes were comparable between the two groups. At 2-year follow-up, a significant shorter operative time after MTLTEP and a greater cosmetic satisfaction after SILTEP have been found.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePatient SatisfactionPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainProspective StudiesInguinal herniaLaparoscopyMid-term outcomesSingle-incision laparoscopyTEP

Identifiers

PMID29362907

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.