ArticleAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2021
Surgical outcomes of totally extraperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia: A retrospective multicenter propensity score-matched study.
Article in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel high accuracy model for automatic surgical workflow recognition using artificial intelligence in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TEP).Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic surgical approaches, including total extraperitoneal repair (TEP), have been widely accepted for inguinal hernia repair in Japan. However, there are limited data regarding recurrence after TEP in Japan, given the limited versatility of this procedure. This study retrospectively evaluated the rates of hernia recurrence after TEP and open mesh repair at multiple Japanese centers.
methodsThis retrospective study evaluated 1917 patients who underwent inguinal hernia repair at 32 institutions in the Oita prefecture between January 2014 and December 2015. Eligible patients were grouped according to whether they underwent TEP (1011 patients) or open mesh repair (636 patients). Propensity score matching was performed 1:1 (total: 1076 patients, 538 patients from each group). The outcomes of interest were recurrence, morbidity, and postoperative recovery.
resultsThe TEP and open mesh repair groups had similar baseline characteristics. After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of recurrence rate (TEP: 0.5% vs open mesh repair: 1.0%, P = .375). However, the TEP group had significantly longer operating times (median: 70.2 min vs 65.0 min, P < .001), significantly less blood loss (0-5.1 mL vs 0-20.4 mL, P < .001), and significantly shorter postoperative hospital stays (median: 5.0 days vs 6.4 days, P < .001). The overall incidences of morbidity were 6.2% in the TEP group and 7.2% in the open mesh repair group (P = .535).
conclusionThis multicenter retrospective study with propensity score matching revealed that the recurrence rates were similarly low for TEP and open mesh repair of inguinal hernia. Thus, a well-trained surgical team could use TEP as a standard procedure.
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.