ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2025
Comparison of enhanced view-totally extraperitoneal technique and totally extraperitoneal technique in S1 scrotal hernia repair.
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The treatment of scrotal hernias may vary according to the surgeon's experience. Although open anterior approaches are mostly preferred, specialized hernia surgeons prefer laparoscopic approaches. The study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic enhanced view-totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) technique and the laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) technique in treating scrotal hernias. Material and Methods: The retrospective cohort study compared patients with unilateral scrotal hernia who underwent eTEP or TEP from November 2022 to October 2023. The two groups were compared in demographic characteristics and operative and postoperative data. The main result of this study was the recurrence rate. Results: A study analyzed 54 patients: 30 underwent the eTEP technique, and 24 underwent the TEP technique. No significant difference was observed between the groups regarding recurrence rates, incidence of chronic pain, time of the surgical procedure, length of stay, time taken to resume daily activities, pneumoperitoneum occurrence, and complications, particularly hematoma and seroma formation. Patients were followed up for an average of 19 months (±5.2). Conclusion: The comparison of the eTEP technique to traditional TEP for scrotal hernia repair has not demonstrated any conclusive evidence of the superiority of eTEP. The outcomes associated with the eTEP technique were found to be comparable to those of TEP, with an average follow-up period of 19 months. Similar to TEP, the eTEP technique demonstrates both safety and feasibility in the management of scrotal hernias. Furthermore, it is necessary for prospective randomized studies to compare these two techniques directly, specifically in the realm of scrotal hernia repair.
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.