Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37443007›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2023

Efficacy of extended view totally extra peritoneal approach versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal on lay mesh plus for abdominal wall hernias: a single center preliminary retrospective study.

Haisong Xu, Wenhao Huang, Yuehua Guo, Mingyue Li, Gongze Peng, Tianchong Wu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A comparative study between ETEP vs. IPOM repair for ventral hernia.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Haisong Xu *The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University, Shenzhen, China.
Wenhao Huang *The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University, Shenzhen, China.
Yuehua GuoDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University, Shenzhen, 518020, Guangdong Province, China.
Mingyue LiDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University, Shenzhen, 518020, Guangdong Province, China.
Gongze PengDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University, Shenzhen, 518020, Guangdong Province, China.
Tianchong WuDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital, The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University, Shenzhen, 518020, Guangdong Province, China. drwutianchong@sina.com.
Jinan University · CNSouthern University of Science and Technology · CNShenzhen Second People's Hospital · CN

Funding

Clinical research and cultivation project of Shenzhen People's Hospital SYLCYJ202003the Science and Technology Innovation Foundation of Shenzhen JCYJ20180228164603659
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic minimally invasive surgery has become the primary treatment for ventral hernias. The laparoscopic intraperitoneal on lay mesh (IPOM) plus approach for abdominal wall hernias is the most used procedure, while extended view totally extraperitoneal (e‑TEP) repair is a newer option. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and complications of the 2 procedures for abdominal wall hernias repair.

methodsThis was a retrospective and comparative single-center study done at The Second Clinical Medical College, Jinan University Hospital (Shenzhen People's Hospital), Shenzhen, China. The study included patients with a 2 to 6 cm abdominal wall defect who underwent hernia repair from January 2022 to December 2022. Patients' baseline characteristics, hernia features, operative time, blood loss, postoperative pain level, and total hospitalization expenses were extracted from the medical records and compared between patients who underwent the IPOM plus and e-TEP repair.

resultsA total of 53 patients were included: 22 in the e-TEP group and 31 in IPOM plus group. Patient demographic characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The operation time of the e-TEP groups was significantly longer than the IPOM plus (98.5 ± 10.7 min vs. 65.9 ± 7.3 min, P < 0.01). Postoperative pain levels (VAS; visual analog scale) (4.2 ± 0.9 vs. 6.7 ± 0.9, P < 0.01), analgesic requirements (Tramadol) (25.0 ± 37.0 mg vs. 72.6 ± 40.5 mg, P < 0.01), length of hospital stay (1.2 ± 0.5days vs. 2.2 ± 0.6days, P < 0.01), and total hospitalization expenses (19695.9 ± 1221.7CNY vs. 35286.2 ± 1196.6CNY, P < 0.01) were significantly lower in the e-TEP group. The mean intraoperative blood loss was similar between the 2 groups. No postoperative complications were observed in either group.

conclusionThe e-TEP approach for abdominal wall hernias appears to be better than IPOM plus with respect to postoperative pain levels(VAS: 4.2 ± 0.9 vs. 6.7 ± 0.9, P < 0.01), analgesic requirements(25.0 ± 37.0 mg vs. 72.6 ± 40.5 mg, P < 0.01), length of hospital stay(1.2 ± 0.5days vs. 2.2 ± 0.6days, P < 0.01), and hospitalization costs (19695.9 ± 1221.7CNY vs. 35286.2 ± 1196.6CNY, P < 0.01).

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralLaparoscopyHerniorrhaphyHumansPostoperative PainRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshAbdominal wall herniaExtended view totally extra peritoneal (e-TEP)Laparoscopic intraperitoneal on lay mesh (IPOM) plus

Identifiers

PMID37443007
PMCPMC10339658
OpenAlexW4384201213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.