Two-port (single incision plus one port) versus single-port laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia: a retrospective comparative study.

Donghang Huang, Huanhong Zeng

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Evaluating the safety and efficacy of SILS and SILS+1 port laparoscopic surgery for colorectal resection: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of RCTs.Frontiers in oncology · 2025
Review

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

2 authors.

Donghang HuangDepartment of Basic Surgery, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, 350001, People's Republic of China.

Huanhong ZengDepartment of Basic Surgery, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, 350001, People's Republic of China. zhh18396539386@sina.com.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province 2022J05214Startup Fund for Scientific Research of Fujian Medical University 2021QH1276

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare the feasibility and efficacy of two-port (single incision plus one port) laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair (TEP) with single-port TEP for the treatment of inguinal hernia. We performed a retrospective comparative study from a prospectively maintained database. A cohort of 229 patients with inguinal hernia who underwent TEP were included. Of these patients, 124 underwent two-port TEP and 105 underwent single-port TEP. Differences in surgical outcomes were compared. The mean operative time was shorter in the two-port TEP group compared to the single-port TEP group (55.3 ± 13.1 vs. 65.1 ± 16.6 min, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of other surgical outcomes including postoperative pain, postoperative hospital stay, time to resume daily activities, cosmetic satisfaction and complications. Two-port TEP is associated with a shorter operative time compared to single-port TEP, while the other outcomes evaluated in this study appear to be comparable.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalLaparoscopyHerniorrhaphyHumansPostoperative PainRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeInguinal herniaLaparoscopic surgeryMinimally invasive surgerySingle-portTotally extraperitoneal repairTwo-port

Identifiers

PMID38070072

DOI10.1007/s13304-023-01716-z

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.