ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2024
A single-center retrospective review of laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal versus robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic transabdominal preperitoneal versus laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a single-center retrospective study in Taiwan.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Modern Perspectives on Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Narrative Review on Surgical Techniques, Mesh Selection and Fixation Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Repair Versus Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Repair for Inguinal Hernia.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the increased use of robotic surgery, robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair (R-TAPP) has become a commonly used approach for inguinal hernia repair. The laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair (L-TEP) has the advantage of not entering the peritoneal cavity; however, it has greater technical difficulty. Robotic surgery has demonstrated superiority over laparoscopy in many surgical settings, but there is limited evidence comparing L-TEP and R-TAPP. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent L-TEP and R-TAPP at Baylor University Medical Center between December 2011 and January 2022. Information on patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, postoperative complications, hospital length of stay, and postoperative complications requiring a procedure was collected. Results: A total of 298 patients were analyzed; 245 underwent R-TAPP and 53 underwent L-TEP. Hernia recurrence was significantly decreased in those who underwent R-TAPP (1.2%) compared to L-TEP (9.4%) ( Conclusions: With the transition from L-TEP to R-TAPP over recent years, there is limited evidence supporting this change in practice. Our single-center retrospective review demonstrates that R-TAPP is noninferior to L-TEP and has significantly decreased hernia recurrence.
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.