ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022
Transumbilical Single-Site Laparoscopic Intraperitoneal Closure of the Internal Inguinal Ring for Pediatric Inguinal Hernia.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A new novel technique for pediatric inguinal hernia (PIH) repair, namely, transumbilical single-site laparoscopic intraperitoneal closure (TUSLIC) of the internal inguinal ring (IIR) with a single instrument, was introduced. The short-term follow-up of TUSLIC for PIH was compared with that of transabdominal multiple-site laparoscopic extraperitoneal closure (TAMLEC) for PIH. Methods: Descriptive variables, perioperative clinical features, and short-term outcomes were retrospectively analyzed and compared between the patients who underwent TUSLIC and those who underwent TAMLEC. Results: In total, 289 patients were enrolled in this study. Of these, 190 patients received TUSLIC, and 99 patients received TAMLEC. The descriptive variables (including sex, age, weight, and preoperative diagnosis of patients) were comparable between the two groups ( Conclusions: TUSLIC is a feasible, safe, and reliable minimally invasive method for PIH. Compared with TAMLEC, TUSLIC has the advantages of minimized complications and a low recurrence rate.
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.