ArticleCureus2023
Comparative Review of Outcomes of Totally Extraperitoneal (TEP) and Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) Primary Inguinal Hernia Repair.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standard TAPP with flat mesh versus TAPP with flat mesh plus mesh plug for inguinal hernia repair: a preliminary single-center randomized experience.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Trial
- Laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) versus transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) techniques in bilateral inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic transabdominal vs. totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: outcomes, healthcare utilization, and cost differences.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) Compared to Totally Extraperitoneal (TEP) for Primary Inguinal Hernia Repair in a Military Hospital: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Health science reports · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is an ongoing debate about the efficacy and postoperative outcomes of transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair. Our aim is to assess the surgical outcomes of each technique, focusing predominantly on postoperative components to determine if establishing a policy to advocate for a single technique is warranted.
methodA literary review of randomized control trials and cohort studies to delineate recurrent concerns or points of contention was undertaken. A retrospective, comparative analysis was performed of TEP and TAPP primary inguinal hernia repairs performed by surgeons with more than five-year experience with their preferred technique over a three-year period (January 2020 to December 2022) at three separate institutions.
resultsA total of 279 applicable cases were reviewed of which 38% (n=106) were performed as TEP and 62% (n=173) performed as TAPP. The demographic of the cohort was heavily skewed towards the male population as expected; however, there were no differences between each subgroup. TEP hernia repair showed a significantly improved postoperative pain score at one and 24 hours, respectively (1.67 ± 0.45, p < 0.05 and 1.97 ± 0.31, p < 0.05). No discernible difference was noted in the categories of length of hospital stay, recurrence rate, and overall patient satisfaction.
conclusionThe study showed overall improved results using the TEP inguinal hernia repair technique; however, no statistically significant results were demonstrated in the long term to advocate for changes to pre-existing surgeon preferences.
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.