ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
Laparoscopic versus robotic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair: a multicenter, propensity score weighted study.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this retrospective study was to assess safety and comparative clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (LTEP) and robot-assisted total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (RaTEP) from multi-institutional experience in Taiwan.
methodsMedical records from eight hospitals in Taiwan were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Patients diagnosed of inguinal hernia, recurrent inguinal hernia and incarceration groin hernia and receiving either laparoscopic or robot-assisted TEP inguinal hernia repair between January 2018 and December 2022 were included in the study. Baseline characteristics, intra-operative and post-operative results were analyzed. To compare two cohorts, overlap Weighting was employed to balance the significant inter-group differences with a standardized mean difference less than 0.001. We also conducted subgroup analyses by state of a hernia (primary or recurrent/incarceration) and laterality (unilateral or bilateral) that indicated complexity of surgery.
resultsA total of 1080 patients who underwent minimally-invasive inguinal hernia repair from 8 hospitals across Taiwan were collected. Following the application of inclusion criteria, there were 237 patients receiving RaTEP and 583 patients receiving LTEP. In the baseline analysis, RaTEP was more often performed in recurrent/incarceration (RaTEP 16.4% vs. LTEP 10.5%, p = 0.050) and bilateral cases (RaTEP 84.0% vs. LTEP 52.5%, p < 0.001). Suturing was the dominant mesh fixation method in RaTEP (RaTEP 80.2% vs. LTEP 20.4%, p < 0.001). More overweight patients were treated with RaTEP (RaTEP 59.5% vs. LTEP 50.3%, p = 0.020). After overlap weighting, there were no significant difference in intraoperative and post-operative complications between RaTEP and LTEP. Prescription rates of pain medication (opioid) were significantly lower in RaTEP than LTEP in overall group comparison (RaTEP 3.56 mg vs. LTEP 13.56 mg, p < 0.001) while operation time was significantly longer in RaTEP (RaTEP 148.83 min vs. LTEP 87.49 min, p < 0.001).
conclusionsRaTEP is safe and demonstrates surgical outcomes comparable to LTEP. It shows technical advantages in more complex hernia cases, facilitates suture fixation of the mesh, and reduces postoperative opioid use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40960714What 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.