Observational studyJournal of robotic surgery2025
Comparing robotic ventral transabdominal preperitoneal repair (rvTAPP) and laparoscopic enhanced view totally extraperitoneal repair (eTEP): a multicentre observational study.
Observational study in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
- Robotic versus open mesh-enforced retrorectus ventral hernia repair: a multi-center comparative study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Intraoperative adverse events and management strategies in laparoscopic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal repair (eTEP): a guide to safe introduction.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- How Reproducible Are Abdominal Wall Surgical Techniques? A Methodological Assessment of Technical Reporting in the Contemporary Literature.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
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
This study compares two emerging minimally invasive techniques-laparoscopic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) and robotic ventral transabdominal preperitoneal repair (rvTAPP)-for the repair of small and mid-sized ventral hernias. A prospective observational study was conducted using data from the international CROSSFIRE database with patients treated between January 2023 and December 2024. The inclusion criteria were primary and incisional midline ventral hernias ≤ 4 cm, treated with eTEP or rvTAPP. The group comparisons were conducted using propensity score matching, adjusting for differences in body mass index, sex, and hernia defect. A total of 165 patients from three centers were included (120 eTEP, 45 rvTAPP). After propensity score matching, 100 patients were included (57 eTEP and 43 rvTAPP). The pain scores after eTEP and rvTAPP at 2 days postoperatively (2.9 vs. 3.3, p = 0.385) and at 6 weeks (2.1 vs. 2.1, p = 0.888) were comparable. The mean comprehensive complication index was similar between eTEP and rvTAPP (1.7 vs. 1.5, p = 0.561). The operation time was 88.8 min for eTEP and 110.1 min for rvTAPP (p = 0.003), whereas rvTAPP involved more teaching procedures (32.6% versus 8.8%; p = 0.004). Surgeon workload, as assessed by NASA Task Load Index, was higher in eTEP than rvTAPP (36.3 vs. 17.1; p < 0.001), indicating greater physical and mental strain. Both posterior minimally invasive ventral hernia repair techniques-eTEP and rvTAPP-are safe and show comparable pain levels at 2 days and 6 weeks. Robotically assisted ventral TAPP has a longer operative time than eTEP but imposes less workload on the surgeon.
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.