Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40336806›Full record

ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons

Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair.

Randeep Wadhawan, Deepa Kizhakke Veetil, Priti Batra, Arun Bhardwaj, Naveen Kumar Verma

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

5 authors.

Randeep WadhawanDepartment of GI, Minimal Access & Bariatric Surgery, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Deepa Kizhakke VeetilDepartment of GI, Minimal Access & Bariatric Surgery, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Priti BatraDepartment of GI, Minimal Access & Bariatric Surgery, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Arun BhardwajDepartment of GI, Minimal Access & Bariatric Surgery, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Naveen Kumar VermaDepartment of GI, Minimal Access & Bariatric Surgery, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to assess the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair in Indian real-world settings. Methods: This is a single-center, prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study. Consecutive patients who were 18 years of age or older, and provided informed consent were included in the study between June 2023 and May 2024. Results: In all, 83 patients were prospectively enrolled in this study: 24 patients were in the robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) group and 59 patients were in the laparoscopic surgery (LS) group. The baseline characteristics of the study cohorts were comparable. The mean total operating time for the RAS group was significantly longer than the LS group (89.83 ± 24.31 vs 67.71 ± 18.34 minutes, Conclusion: This study reports encouraging preliminary clinical outcomes of RAS inguinal hernia repairs in Indian settings, in terms of postoperative pain and QoL.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyLaparoscopyPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesQuality of LifeData collectionLaparoscopic inguinal repairPainProspectiveQuality of lifeRobotic-assisted inguinal repair

Identifiers

PMID40336806
PMCPMC12057728

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.