ArticleBMC surgery2025
A retrospective comparative study of the enhanced view-totally extraperitoneal technique versus the traditional totally extraperitoneal technique in managing recurrent inguinal hernias.
Article in BMC 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.
- Healthcare System Transition in Kazakhstan and Its Impact on Inguinal Hernia Repair Outcomes: A Multidisciplinary Comparative Analysis of TEP, TIPP, and Open Lichtenstein Procedures.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternational guidelines recommend a laparoscopic approach in patients with recurrent inguinal hernia after open anterior repair. It is unclear which laparoscopic approach should be used. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic enhanced view-total extraperitoneal (eTEP) technique and total extraperitoneal (TEP) technique in the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernias.
methodsThe retrospective cohort study compared patients with unilateral recurrent inguinal hernia after anterior repair who underwent eTEP or TEP technique from February 2023 to February 2024. The two groups were compared in demographic characteristics and surgical and postsurgical data. The primary outcome of this study was recurrence and operation time.
resultsA total of 62 patients were analyzed. The eTEP technique was performed on 32 patients, while the TEP technique was used on 30 patients. The mean follow-up period was 18.3 (± 5) months. There was no recurrence in either group. The mean operative time was 44.4 (± 10.4) minutes for the eTEP group and 45.7 (± 10.2) minutes for the TEP group (p = 0.62). Pneumoperitoneum occurred in 14 (43.7%) patients in the eTEP group and 20 (66.7%) patients in the TEP group (p = 0.07). The mean time to return to activities was 6.8 (± 2.7) days for the eTEP group and 6.9 (± 2.3) days for the TEP group (p = 0.57). Chronic pain was reported in only 1 (3.3%) patient in the TEP group (p = 0.48). The length of stay in the hospital was 1 day for both groups. Hematoma formation was observed in 3 (9.3%) patients in the eTEP group and 3 (10%) patients in the TEP group; seroma formation was reported in 2 (6.2%) and 2 (6.7%) patients, respectively (p = 0.99).
conclusionThe eTEP technique demonstrated results similar to TEP, particularly regarding recurrence, operation time, and postoperative outcomes. Like TEP, eTEP is a safe and viable option for recurrent inguinal hernias. Furthermore, prospective randomized studies comparing these two techniques are necessary for recurrent inguinal hernias.
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.