SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic totally Extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes.
Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (SIL-TEP) has gained attention for its potential to minimize surgical trauma and improve cosmesis. However, its comparative efficacy and safety versus conventional multi-port laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair (MTL-TEP) remain contentious.
objectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the feasibility and safety of SIL-TEP compared to MTL-TEP.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from January 2005 to June 2025. Data on postoperative outcomes were extracted and pooled for meta-analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4, calculating mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsAnalysis of 23 studies (7 RCTs, 16 non-RCTs; 2894 patients) showed SIL-TEP had a longer unilateral operative time (MD = 4.39 min, 95% CI: 0.88-7.89, P = 0.01), though this was not significant in study design subgroup analysis. SIL-TEP offered superior early outcomes, including lower pain scores on postoperative day 7 (MD = -0.57, 95% CI: -1.09 to -0.05, P = 0.03) and higher cosmetic satisfaction (MD = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.27-1.28, P = 0.002). The techniques were comparable in bilateral operative time, overall complications (OR = 0.92, P = 0.48), hospital stay (MD = -0.02, P = 0.50), and recurrence rates (OR = 0.81, P = 0.65).
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that SIL-TEP is a safe and feasible alternative to MTL-TEP. The pooled results indicate potential benefits of SIL-TEP in reducing early postoperative pain and achieving better cosmetic outcomes, although these advantages were not sustained in the RCT subgroup analysis. Critically, both techniques demonstrated comparable safety profiles, with no significant differences in complication rates, hospital stay, and short-to-midterm recurrence risk. SIL-TEP represents a viable surgical option that can be individualized for patients, particularly those who place a high value on minimal scarring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41627557What 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.