SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic transabdominal preperitoneal versus laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis 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 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repairs have emerged as alternatives to open surgery, but direct comparisons of their outcomes remain limited. This study compared the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic TAPP (R-TAPP) versus laparoscopic TEP (L-TEP) for inguinal hernia repair.
methodsA search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to October 2025, without language restrictions. Meta-analyses were performed using pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and trial sequential analysis (TSA) evaluated the conclusiveness of evidence.
resultsSix studies with a total of 992 patients (510 R-TAPP, 482 L-TEP) were included. R-TAPP demonstrated significantly longer operative time (MD: 17.76 min; 95% CI: 3.83 to 31.70; p = 0.01), and a slightly longer hospital stay (MD: 0.16 days; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.29; p = 0.01), though the latter was likely not clinically meaningful. Sensitivity and trial sequential analyses suggested a significant reduction in postoperative pain with R-TAPP, with TSA confirming robust evidence for lower pain scores (median unbiased estimate MD: -1.59; 95% CI: -2.41 to -0.76; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in recurrence rates, seroma formation, urinary retention, or wound infection.
conclusionRobotic TAPP inguinal hernia repair offers comparable safety and efficacy to laparoscopic TEP, with potential benefits in reducing postoperative pain but requires longer operative time and hospital stay. Both techniques demonstrate similar rates of recurrence and complications. Further randomized trials with an extended follow-up are recommended to confirm these findings and inform best practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41452528What 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.