Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29987564›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2019

Effects of transabdominal preperitoneal and totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: an update systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Li-Siou Chen, Wei-Chieh Chen, Yi-No Kang, Chien-Chih Wu, Long-Wen Tsai, Min-Zhe Liu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. TEP for elective primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair in men: what do we know?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  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.

Li-Siou Chen *Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Education, Taipei Medical University Hospital, No. 252, Wu-Xing Street, Taipei, 110, Taiwan.
Wei-Chieh Chen *Department of Urology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, No. 252, Wu-Xing Street, Taipei, 110, Taiwan.
Yi-No KangCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Education, Taipei Medical University Hospital, No. 252, Wu-Xing Street, Taipei, 110, Taiwan. academicnono@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8244-2846
Chien-Chih WuCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Education, Taipei Medical University Hospital, No. 252, Wu-Xing Street, Taipei, 110, Taiwan.
Long-Wen TsaiCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Education, Taipei Medical University Hospital, No. 252, Wu-Xing Street, Taipei, 110, Taiwan.
Min-Zhe LiuDepartment of Urology, Taipei Medical University Hospital, No. 252, Wu-Xing Street, Taipei, 110, Taiwan. d204097002@tmu.edu.tw.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCompared with open herniorrhaphy, laparoscopic herniorrhaphy can yield more favorable clinical outcomes. However, previous studies failed to give definite answer for comparison between laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair approaches. This study aimed to systematically determine the differences in recurrence rate, duration of return to work, pain, surgery duration, and duration of hospital stay between transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) approach for inguinal hernia.

methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) abstracts up to September 2017 were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAPP or TEP hernia repairing. The hernia recurrence rate, time to return to work, analgesic consumption, surgery duration, hospital stay, and the pain score were recorded with subgroup analysis of the hernia type.

resultsSixteen RCTs that randomized 1519 patients with hernia into TEP and TAPP repair groups were analyzed in this study. The results revealed that TEP repair resulted in shorter hospital stay of primary cases (MD - 0.87, 95% CI - 1.67 to - 0.07) but was associated with a longer operative duration in recurrent hernia group (MD 3.35, 95% CI 0.16 - 6.54).

conclusionsTEP and TAPP have their own advantages. TEP repair reduces short-term postoperative pain more effectively than TAPP repair and results in shorter hospital stay of primary cases. In contrast, TAPP repair is correlated with shorter surgery duration. These findings show that shared decision-making regarding both approaches of laparoscopic hernia repair may be needed.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeInguinal herniaTotally extraperitonealTransabdominal preperitoneal

Identifiers

PMID29987564

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.