Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39160308›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024

Suture versus tacks in minimally invasive transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Bernardo Fontel Pompeu, Giulia Almiron da Rocha Soares, Mariana Pereira Silva, Ana Gabriela Ponte Farias, Raquel Oliveira de Sousa Silva, Sergio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Bernardo Fontel PompeuDepartment of Surgery, Heliopolis Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil. bernardo.pompeu@online.uscs.edu.br.ORCID 0009-0009-2960-3810
Giulia Almiron da Rocha SoaresUniversidade Metropolitana de Santos, Santos, Brazil.
Mariana Pereira SilvaEscola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública, Brotas, Brazil.
Ana Gabriela Ponte FariasUniversidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil.
Raquel Oliveira de Sousa SilvaUniversidade Federal do Piauí, Teresina, Brazil.
Sergio Mazzola Poli de FigueiredoDepartment of Surgery, Center for Abdominal Core Health, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is uncertainty regarding the method of mesh fixation and peritoneal closure during transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair for inguinal hernias, with no definitive guidelines to guide surgeon choice.

methodsMEDLINE, Cochrane, Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Web of Science were searched for RCTs published until November 2023. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random-effects model. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I

resultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, comprising 624 patients, of whom 309 (49.5%) patients were submitted to TAPP with the use of tacks, and 315 (50.5%) received suture fixation. The use of tacker fixation was associated with a significant increase in postoperative pain at 24 h (MD 0.79 [VAS score]; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; p < 0.0002; I

conclusionIn patients who underwent TAPP hernia repair, tacks are associated with decreased operative time but increased postoperative pain at 24 h and one week.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSuture TechniquesHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresOperative TimePostoperative PainSurgical MeshSuturesInguinal HerniaLaparoscopic surgeryMesh fixationPostoperative painTAPP

Identifiers

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.