ArticleJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Repair Versus Laparoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal Repair for Inguinal Hernia.
Article in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: To date, no Japanese studies have compared robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair (R-TAPP) and laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair (L-TEP). Herein, we present our initial experience from a single Japanese hospital, comparing both procedures and evaluating their short-term outcomes in the context of potential inclusion under Japan's national health insurance system. Methods: Patients with inguinal hernias who had not undergone previous anterior hernioplasty were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic factors (age, sex, body mass index) and perioperative data were collected. Surgical variables and postoperative outcomes were compared between patients who underwent R-TAPP using the da Vinci ξ robotic platform (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) and those who underwent L-TEP. Data were assessed for all, unilateral, and bilateral cases. Five surgeons participated in this study. Surgeon-specific variables, including the number of R-TAPP and L-TEP procedures performed by each surgeons, operative times, and complication rates, were also collected to evaluate the influence of the surgeon's experience on perioperative outcomes. Results: Resident participation significantly differed between the 2 techniques across total, unilateral, and bilateral groups. In the unilateral subgroup, the mean operative time was shorter for R-TAPP (95.4 minutes) than for L-TEP (122.3 minutes). The R-TAPP group had higher costs, but complication rates were comparable. One Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative bleeding event occurred in the L-TEP group, while only minor complications, including paralytic ileus and inferior epigastric artery injury, were observed after R-TAPP. The surgeon-specific analysis demonstrated variability in operative times among the 5 surgeons; however, 4 of the 5 surgeons showed consistently shorter operative times with R-TAPP than with L-TEP, suggesting a procedural trend favoring R-TAPP despite differences in experience. Conclusion: Both R-TAPP and L-TEP were performed safely, with no notable differences in perioperative outcomes. However, R-TAPP may provide improved operative efficiency, particularly in primary unilateral inguinal hernias. Although surgeon experience influenced operative performance, the consistent trend toward shorter operative times across surgeons suggests that R-TAPP may offer intrinsic procedural advantages. Further prospective studies with balanced surgeon distribution and long-term follow-up are warranted.
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.