Observational studyPloS one2021
Outcomes of open versus single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair using propensity score matching: A single institution experience.
Observational study in PloS one, 2021. 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.
- Risk factors associated with inguinal hernia recurrence after single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Single-incision laparoscopic surgery transabdominal preperitoneal approach for recurrent inguinal hernia: A case series of long-term follow-up.International journal of surgery case reports · 2023Article
- Utilization of laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair at a large hernia center in China: a single-center observational study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Observational
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
purposeThe aim of the current study was to compare the outcomes between open and single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (SILTEP) inguinal hernia repair.
methodsTo compare the outcomes between the open and SILTEP groups, we performed propensity score matching to adjust for significant differences in patient characteristics. The outcomes were compared between the matched groups.
resultsRecord review identified 477 patients who had undergone inguinal hernia repair from November 2016 to November 2018. Seventy-one patients were excluded from the propensity score matching because of age <18, femoral hernia, conventional 3-port laparoscopic repair, incarcerated hernia, and combined operation. SILTEP in 142 and open repair in 264 patients were identified. After propensity score matching, these individuals were grouped into 82 pairs. Spinal anesthesia was administered more often in the open group than in the SILTEP group. Operation time was significantly longer in the SILTEP group than in the open group (49.6 ± 17.4 vs. 64.8 ± 28.4 min, p < 0.001). However, urinary retention rates of the open group were significantly higher than that of the SILTEP group (11.0% vs. 0%, p = 0.003). The SILTEP group showed significantly lower pain scores at postoperative 6, 12, and 24 hours, and significantly lower rates of intravenous analgesic requirements through postoperative day 1 (30.5% vs. 13.4%, p = 0.008) compared with the open group.
conclusionThe outcomes of SILTEP repair were comparable to those of open repair. SILTEP repair may have advantages over open repair for reducing immediate postoperative pain (≤24 hours).
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.