ArticleBMC surgery2025
Comparative study of free vas deferens separation for repair of inguinal hernia and transabdominal preperitoneal prosthesis for adult males.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond acronyms: a domain-based structural analysis of abdominal wall hernia repair techniques in the contemporary literature.Surgical endoscopy · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is now widely performed worldwide. However, there is no consensus on the most appropriate surgical operation for inguinal hernia in adult males. This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and applicability of laparoscopic free vas deferens separation with transabdominal preperitoneal (LFVD-TAPP) repair for inguinal hernia in adult males, in comparison to the conventional transabdominal preperitoneal prosthesis (TAPP) approach.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 189 adult male patients who underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University between February 2020 and January 2023. Patients were divided into two groups that included the LFVD-TAPP (n = 95) and the conventional TAPP (n = 94). Observation targets included surgical and postoperative recovery, complication rates, recurrence and chronic pain. Data were analyzed using SPSS 27.0, with statistical significance defined as p < 0.05.
resultsNo significant differences were found in baseline characteristics between groups. The LFVD-TAPP group showed significantly shorter operative times for both unilateral and bilateral hernias compared to the TAPP group (0.97 ± 0.20 h vs. 1.60 ± 0.21 h; 1.21 ± 0.17 h vs. 2.01 ± 0.30 h; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in postoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, or hospitalization costs (P > 0.05). However, the LFVD-TAPP group exhibited a higher incidence of temporary groin induration (11 vs. 4; P < 0.05),but significantly lower rates of scrotal hematoma (5 vs. 17; P < 0.05), and chronic pain (6 vs. 11; P < 0.05). No differences were observed in other complications or recurrence rates. Follow-up over 12-24 months revealed no cases of ischemic orchitis, testicular atrophy, or ejaculatory dysfunction in the LFVD-TAPP group.
conclusionsLFVD-TAPP presents clinical advantages over conventional TAPP, including simplified intraoperative separation, reduced surgical difficulty, and lower rates of postoperative scrotal hematoma and chronic pain, without increasing the risk of recurrence. Therefore, the LFVD-TAPP provides better protection of the vas deferens, suggesting its potential for clinical application and broader promotion.
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.