SynthesisMedicine2020
Comparison of endoscopic surgery and Lichtenstein repair for treatment of inguinal hernias: A network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of short- and long-term efficacy and economic indicators between transabdominal preperitoneal and open tension-free repair for inguinal hernia in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) versus Lichtenstein for inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Learning curve of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) vs endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) procedure in unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Trial
- Clinical outcomes of open partial preperitoneal tension-free repair for inguinal hernia following radical prostatectomy: a single-center retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- A retrospective study of defect closure and hernia belt compression for seroma prevention in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Risk factors and clinical impact of seroma formation following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2024Article
- Lichtenstein versus TIPP versus TAPP versus TEP for primary inguinal hernia, a matched propensity score study on the French Club Hernie Registry.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- A novel laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair technique: single-port lateral non-abdominal pre-peritoneal approach.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of open preperitoneal and transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair for primary unilateral femoral hernia: a retrospective cohort study of 132 case.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Critical view of the myopectineal orifice: a scoring system to objectively evaluate transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Surgical outcomes of totally extraperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia: A retrospective multicenter propensity score-matched study.Annals of gastroenterological 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to identify the best procedure for addressing inguinal hernias by comparing results after transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), totally extraperitoneal (TEP), and Lichtenstein repairs using a network meta-analysis.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to September 1, 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the TAPP, TEP, and Lichtenstein procedures. The study outcome were the hernia recurrence, chronic pain, hematoma, seroma, wound infection, operation time, hospital stay, and return-to-work days.
resultsAltogether, 31 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The results of this network meta-analysis showed there were no significantly differences among the 3 procedures in terms of hernia recurrence, chronic pain, hematoma, seroma, hospital stays. Lichtenstein had a shorter operation time than TAPP+TEP [MD (95%Crl)]: 12 (0.51-25.0) vs 18 (6.11-29.0) minutes, respectively) but was associated with more wound infections than TEP: OR 0.33 (95%Crl 0.090-0.81). Our network meta-analysis suggests that TAPP and TEP require fewer return-to-work days [MD (95%CI)]: - 3.7 (-6.3 to 1.3) vs -4.8 (-7.11 to 2.8) days.
conclusionOur network meta-analysis showed that there were no differences among the TAPP, TEP, and Lichtenstein procedures in terms of safety or effectiveness for treating inguinal hernias. However, TAPP and TEP could decrease the number of return-to-work days. A further study with more focus on this topic for inguinal hernia is suggested.
Indexed as
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.