ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Comparative analysis of plane vs. telescopic dissection in totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: propensity score matching.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTotally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair involves creating a preperitoneal space. The preperitoneal space can be created by telescopic dissection (TD) or plane dissection (PD). Nevertheless, these techniques may have some complications. This study aims to assess the impact and comprehensively compare the TD and PD methods in patients undergoing laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 156 patients who underwent PD at the Hospital from January 2017 to December 2023. Using propensity score matching (PSM), 312 TD patients were matched at a 1:2 ratio. The primary outcomes included peritoneal injury, vascular injury, clarity of the surgical field, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and recurrence rate.
resultsAfter matching, no significant differences in clinical characteristics were observed between the two groups. The PD group showed better the surgical field clarity, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and shorter operation time compared to the TD group. Additionally, the TD group had higher hospitalization costs. There were no statistically significant differences in hospital stay and follow-up duration between the two groups. There was a significant difference in the overall complication rate between the PD and TD groups, mainly in terms of peritoneal and vascular injuries. There was no statistical difference in severe complications (Clavien-Dindo classification) between the two groups. There was also no significant difference between the two groups in terms of incision infection, seroma, hematoma, chronic pain, and recurrence rate between the groups.
conclusionBoth plane dissection and telescopic dissection demonstrate efficacy and reliability in TEP surgery. The PD group showed superior performance in terms of clarity of the surgical field, reduction of peritoneal and vascular injuries, and could shorten hospital stays and reduce costs. Therefore, plane dissection has considerable potential for application in TEP surgery.
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.