ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2019
Comparison of minimally invasive preperitoneal (MIP) single-layer mesh repair and total extraperitoneal (TEP) repair for inguinal hernia in terms of postoperative chronic pain: a prospective randomized trial.
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Call to Change the Nomenclature of "Open" Inguinal Hernia Repair.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2024Article
- Article
- Predictors of low quality of life after open inguinal hernia repair using the EuraHS-QoL score: prospective multicentric cohort study across 33 hospitals.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Article
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
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare minimally invasive preperitoneal (MIP) single layer mesh repair with total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair in terms of complications, recurrence, and chronic pain. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 240 patients who underwent elective, primary, unilateral inguinal hernia operation between April 2011 and September 2012 were divided into two randomized groups. The first group underwent MIP repair and the second group underwent TEP repair. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Sheffield Scale (SS) were used to evaluate chronic pain.
resultsIn all, 225 (95%) of the patients completed follow-up and were included in analyses. A significant difference was not detected between groups in terms of demographics, operative time, or intraoperative, early, or late complications. Length of time before return to work was significantly shorter in the TEP group (p <0.001). Recurrence was seen in 1 (0.88%) patient in the MIP group and 1 (0.89%) patient in the TEP group (p= 0.993). Evaluation of chronic pain revealed no significant difference between groups in VAS and SS values at postoperative 6th, 12th, and 24th months.
conclusionIn conclusion, it was observed that MIP repair for inguinal hernia has all of the advantages of preperitoneal repair and eliminates disadvantages of TEP repair. MIP technique is as safe as TEP repair and has similar qualities in terms of chronic pain, even though it is an open intervention.
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.