Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29700716›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2018

Open versus robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair: a multicenter matched analysis of clinical outcomes.

R Gamagami, E Dickens, A Gonzalez, L D'Amico, C Richardson, J Rabaza, R Kolachalam

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Robotic inguinal hernia repair: is technology taking over? Systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Open vs. robot-assisted preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Are they truly clinically different?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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 at 6 institutions in 1 country.

R GamagamiSilver Cross Hospital, 1890 Silver Cross Blvd, Suite 410, New Lenox, IL, 60451, USA. rezagamagami@comcast.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3658-213X
E DickensHillcrest Medical Center and Oklahoma Physician Group, Tulsa, OK, USA.
A GonzalezDepartment of General and Bariatric Surgery, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA.
L D'AmicoValleyCare Health System of Ohio, Trumbull Memorial Hospital, Warren, OH, USA.
C RichardsonRochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY, USA.
J RabazaDepartment of General and Bariatric Surgery, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA.
R KolachalamProvidence Park Hospital, Novi, MI, USA.
Baptist Health South Florida · USHillcrest Hospital · USMemorial Hospital · USProvidence Park Hospital · USRochester General Hospital · USSilver Cross Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the perioperative outcomes of initial, consecutive robotic-assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (R-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair (IHR) cases with consecutive open cases completed by the same surgeons.

methodsMulticenter, retrospective, comparative study of perioperative results from open and robotic IHR using standard univariate and multivariate regression analyses for propensity score matched (1:1) cohorts.

resultsSeven general surgeons at six institutions contributed 602 consecutive open IHR and 652 consecutive R-TAPP IHR cases. Baseline patient characteristics in the unmatched groups were similar with the exception of previous abdominal surgery and all baseline characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. In matched analyses, postoperative complications prior to discharge were comparable. However, from post discharge through 30 days, fewer patients experienced complications in the R-TAPP group than in the open group [4.3% vs 7.7% (p = 0.047)]. The R-TAPP group had no reoperations post discharge through 30 days of follow-up compared with five patients (1.1%) in the open group (p = 0.062), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis which demonstrated patient age > 65 years and the open approach were risk factors for complications within 30 days post discharge in the matched group [age > 65 years: odds ratio (OR) = 3.33 (95% CI 1.89, 5.87; p < 0.0001); open approach: OR = 1.89 (95% CI 1.05, 3.38; p = 0.031)].

conclusionsIn this matched analysis, R-TAPP provides similar postoperative complications prior to discharge and a lower rate of postoperative complications through 30 days compared to open repair. R-TAPP is a promising and reproducible approach, and may facilitate adoption of minimally invasive repairs of inguinal hernias.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAge FactorsFemaleHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansMaleMatched-Pair AnalysisMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsInguinal hernia repairOpenRoboticTAPP

Identifiers

PMID29700716
OpenAlexW2800709479

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.