Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37187806›Full record

Trial reportJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons

A Comparative Evaluation of Extended Total Extraperitoneal Repair Versus Standard Total Extraperitoneal Repair and Transabdominal Preperitoneal Repair of Inguinal Hernias.

Nalin Kumar Srivastava, Albail Singh Yadav, Rajeev Sinha

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

3 authors.

Nalin Kumar SrivastavaDepartment of General Surgery, Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi, India (all authors).
Albail Singh YadavDepartment of General Surgery, Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi, India (all authors).
Rajeev SinhaDepartment of General Surgery, Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi, India (all authors).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) includes transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP), standard totally extraperitoneal repair (TEP), and now extended TEP (eTEP). However, there is still a paucity of well conducted, peer reviewed comparative studies regarding the advantages, if any, of eTEP. This study aimed to compare the data of eTEP repair with that of TEP and TAPP repair. Methods: Two hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups of eTEP (80), TEP (68), and TAPP (72) after matching for age, sex, and clinical extent of hernia. Permission of ethics committee was taken. Results: Comparison with TEP showed, mean operating time for eTEP was significantly longer in the first 20 patients, subsequently there was no difference. Conversion rates of TEP to TAPP was significantly higher. The other peroperative and postoperative parameters did not differ. Similarly, on comparison with TAPP, there was no difference in any of the parameters. eTEP, also had shorter operating time and less incidence of pneumoperitoneum when compared to published TEP and TAPP studies. Conclusion: All the three laparoscopic hernia approaches had similar outcomes. eTEP cannot be advocated as a substitute for TAPP or TEP.The choice of procedure should be the surgeon's choice. However, eTEP does combine the advantage of both TAPP, in the form of a large working space and of TEP, by being totally extraperitoneal. eTEP is also easier to learn and teach.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalLaparoscopyHerniorrhaphyHumansSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeeTEPHerniasInguinalTAPPTEP

Identifiers

PMID37187806
PMCPMC10178627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.