ArticleUpdates in surgery2024
Ultra-micro instrument in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) hernioplasty.
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.
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.
- Needlescopic Laparoscope Sleeve Gastrectomy (NLSG): a Potential Surgical Approach.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the feasibility of ultra-micro instruments in the laparoscopic repair of inguinal indirect hernia. This retrospective study included 83 patients with an indirect inguinal hernia who underwent elective surgery from January 2020 to December 2021. All patients were divided into the traditional laparoscopic group and ultra-micro laparoscopic group. The data on operation time, blood loss, ventilation time, hospital stays, complication, postoperative pain degree was collected and compared between the two groups. Of these 83 patients, 25 assigned to the ultra-micro group used ultra-micro instruments while 58 were assigned to the traditional group. The traditional group had a lower mean operation time (57.07 min) than the ultra-micro group (69.60 min) p < 0.05, while ultra-micro group patients had a shorter hospital stay (2 days) than the traditional group (3 days) p < 0.05. The ultra-micro group experienced significantly less pain for 6 h, 1 day, and 2 days postoperatively (2, 1, 0 points) compared to the traditional group (4, 2, 1 points) p < 0.05. There was no significant difference in blood loss, ventilation time, or complication between the two groups. Using ultra-micro instruments is safe and feasible. Patients have less postoperative pain and a smaller incision than the traditional laparoscopic instrument. It is worthy of clinical promotion.
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.