ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery2025
Comparison of modified tumescent and conventional laparoscopic transabdominal pre-peritoneal repair in the patients of inguinal hernia: A randomised control trial.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery, 2025. 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.
- Bilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair: Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Versus Open Lichtenstein.Acta medica Lituanica · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInguinal hernia surgery, a common procedure worldwide, continues to develop to achieve minimal access and tension-free repairs. However, a universally accepted technique has yet to be developed. Our study introduces a new approach, a modified tumescent transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP), to a low-cost setting. We then compare its safety and efficacy with the conventional TAPP, providing a new perspective on hernia repair methods. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study was conducted between April 2016 and September 2017 at the department of surgery in a medical college in Jammu. Sixty patients were randomly assigned to either the conventional TAPP group or the tumescent TAPP group using computer-generated randomisation. In the tumescent group, we carefully administered a tumescent solution into the pre-peritoneal space after creating pneumoperitoneum and then compared the effectiveness and safety of the two procedures.
resultsOur study revealed significant differences in various aspects between the two groups. In the conventional group, 16.7% of patients experienced challenging peritoneal flap dissection, while none in the tumescent group faced this issue. In addition, none of the patients in the tumescent group had an intraoperative haemorrhage. The conventional group had a mean operating time of 100.4 ± 11.21 min. On the other hand, the tumescent group had a significantly shorter mean operating time of 84 ± 13.47 min. The complication rates were 16.7% in the tumescent group and 30% in the conventional group. After the surgery, 13.3% of patients in the conventional group reported persistent pain, compared to only one patient in the tumescent group, which was statistically significant.
conclusionOur study demonstrates that tumescent TAPP can overcome the challenges of conventional TAPP surgery, offering practical benefits such as reduced bleeding, easier dissection, decreased post-operative pain and shorter operating time. Administering tumescent solution before TAPP repair of inguinal hernia provides technical and clinical advantages, suggesting the potential for shorter surgeries and a quicker learning curve.
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.