Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32123978›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2020

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Long-Term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Single-Port Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair.

Daryl Kai Ann Chia, Davide Lomanto, Sujith Wijerathne

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02302937 (A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial to Compare Single Port Laparoscopic TEP Inguinal Hernia Repair Versus Standard Laparoscopic), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

NCT02302937 nacompletednot on this map

A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial to Compare Single Port Laparoscopic TEP Inguinal Hernia Repair Versus Standard Laparoscopic (3 Port) TEP Inguinal Hernia Mesh Repair

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational University Hospital, SingaporeRan2011 to 2014Enrolled100ConditionsPrimary Unilateral Inguinal HerniaArmsGroup A will undergo laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair with 3 ports (10 mm , and 2 ports of 5 mm ), Group B will undergo laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair with a single port
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daryl Kai Ann ChiaDepartment of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9936-1225
Davide LomantoDepartment of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Sujith WijerathneDepartment of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore. sujithwijerathne@gmail.com.
National University Hospital · SGNational University Health System · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgical techniques for inguinal hernia repair have evolved rapidly from open methods to conventional laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal (CTEP) and recently single-port TEP (STEP). As there is currently no randomized controlled trial (RCT) reporting long-term patient-reported outcomes between CTEP and STEP, we reviewed patients who were randomized to CTEP or STEP 5 years after surgery.

methodsTelephone interviews were administered to patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernia recruited for the RCT comparing CTEP and STEP in 2011. The modified Body Image Questionnaire was used to measure long-term patient-reported outcomes.

resultsForty-two out of forty-nine of the STEP group and forty-one out of fifty of the CTEP group responded to phone interviews. Median follow-up time, demographic data and clinical outcomes were comparable between both groups. The Body Image Score (5-20: 5-least dissatisfied, 20-most dissatisfied; BIS score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 5.33 ± 0.90 vs. 7.17 ± 1.87, p < 0.001) and Cosmetic Score (2-20: 2-least satisfied, 20-most satisfied; CS score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 19.05 ± 1.31 vs. 15.87 ± 1.57, p < 0.001) were superior in the STEP group. Similarly, self-reported scar perception (1-cannot be seen, 2-can barely be seen, 3-visible; scar perception score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 1.29 ± 0.51 vs. 2.55 ± 0.64, p < 0.001) and overall experience score (1-least satisfied, 10-most satisfied; overall satisfaction score ± SD, STEP vs. CTEP, 9.57 ± 0.67 vs. 8.22 ± 0.94, p < 0.001) were superior in the STEP group.

conclusionPatients who underwent STEP reported superior cosmetic and satisfaction scores and comparable surgical outcomes 5 years after surgery compared to the CTEP group. STEP should be strongly considered in patients who are concerned about long-term cosmetic outcomes and should be offered if surgical expertise is available. Trial registration NCT02302937.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedFemaleHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32123978
OpenAlexW3009595561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.