Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35277771›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2022

Comparison of extended totally extra peritoneal (eTEP) vs intra peritoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for management of primary and incisional hernia in terms of early outcomes and cost effectiveness-a randomized controlled trial.

Mayank Jain, Asuri Krishna, Om Prakash, Subodh Kumar, Rajesh Sagar, Rashmi Ramachandran, Virinder Kumar Bansal

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mayank JainDepartment of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No. 5026A, 5th Floor, Teaching Block, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Asuri KrishnaDepartment of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No. 5026A, 5th Floor, Teaching Block, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India. dr.asurikrishna@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1214-0014
Om PrakashDepartment of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No. 5026A, 5th Floor, Teaching Block, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Subodh KumarDepartment of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No. 5026A, 5th Floor, Teaching Block, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Rajesh SagarDepartment of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Rashmi RamachandranDepartment of Anesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Virinder Kumar BansalDepartment of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No. 5026A, 5th Floor, Teaching Block, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India. drvkbansal@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are no randomized controlled trials comparing the eTEP with IPOM repair and this randomized study was designed to compare the two techniques in terms of early pain, cost effectiveness, and quality of life.

methodThis was a prospective randomized trial with intention to treat analysis. The primary outcome was immediate post-operative pain scores. Operative time, conversions, peri operative morbidity, hospital stay, return to daily activities, incremental cost effectiveness ratio and quality of life (WHO-QOL BREF) were secondary outcomes.

resultsSixty patients were randomized equally. Early post-operative pain scores and seroma rates were significantly lower and with a significantly earlier return to activity in eTEP group (p value < 0.05). With negative costs and positive effects, eTEP group was 2.4 times more cost effective.

conclusioneTEP repair is better in terms of lesser early post-operative pain, earlier return to activities and cost effectiveness in small and medium size defects.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralIncisional HerniaLaparoscopyCost-Benefit AnalysisHerniorrhaphyHumansPostoperative PainProspective StudiesQuality of LifeSurgical MesheTEPIPOMVentral Hernia

Identifiers

PMID35277771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.