ArticleJournal of minimally invasive surgery2021
Short-term comparative study of three-dimensional and two-dimensional laparoscopic surgery for total extraperitoneal primary inguinal hernia repair.
Article in Journal of minimally invasive surgery, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the use of three-dimensional reconstruction visualization technology for precise laparoscopic resection in gastroesophageal junction cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic surgery for total extraperitoneal (TEP) primary inguinal hernia repair. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, observational database study of 38 patients who underwent laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair from March 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019 at Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong in Seoul, Korea. Results: There was no significant difference in sex ratio, age, or body mass index between the two groups. The 2D group had two patients with direct hernia and 18 patients with indirect hernia. The 3D group had five patients with direct hernia, 11 patients with indirect hernia, and two patients with femoral hernia. The mean operation time was 38.2 minutes in the 2D group compared with 37.2 minutes in the 3D group. There was no severe intraoperative bleeding in either group. During the operation, peritoneal tearing occurred in 12 out of 20 patients in the 2D group compared with five out of 18 patients in the 3D group ( Conclusion: A 3D laparoscopic surgery is feasible and safe for inguinal hernia repair and showed less peritoneal tearing compared with 2D laparoscopic surgery for primary inguinal hernia repair.
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.