ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative outcomes of Toumai robotic and laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair in a retrospective cohort.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Early clinical experience with the Toumai robotic system in general surgery: a systematic review of short-term outcomes and telesurgical applications.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the clinical efficacy of the “Toumai” surgical robot and conventional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in order to inform surgical practice. A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from 50 patients who underwent inguinal hernia repair at the Department of General Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, between January 2022 and October 2023. Among them, 16 patients received robot-assisted repair (robotic group), and 34 underwent conventional laparoscopic repair (laparoscopic group), all via the transabdominal preperitoneal approach. Evaluation indicators included: (1) preoperative baseline characteristics; (2) intraoperative and postoperative outcomes; and (3) postoperative incision healing and adverse events. Outpatient follow-up and clinical re-examination were conducted 1 to 3 months after surgery to assess wound recovery and recurrence. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median (M), and analyzed using the t-test; categorical data were compared using the chi-square test. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the robot-assisted and laparoscopic groups, including sex ratio, age, weight, and hernia classification (P > 0.05). Intraoperatively and postoperatively, the robot group had a significantly longer operative time (104.19 ± 18.93 min vs. 90.17 ± 22.31 min), but demonstrated significantly less blood loss (6.94 ± 3.80 mL vs. 12.24 ± 9.31 mL), shorter hospital stay (3.18 ± 0.54 vs. 3.68 ± 0.81 days), lower pain scores (2.06 ± 0.93 vs. 3.03 ± 1.29), and reduced Subjective Mental Load Scale scores (18.12 ± 12.23 vs. 30.17 ± 11.46) compared to the laparoscopic group (all P < 0.05). No intraoperative complications were observed in either group. Follow-up results showed that postoperative recurrence occurred in 1 case in the robot group and 2 cases in the laparoscopic group. Poor incision healing occurred in 0 and 3 cases, and incision pain in 1 and 4 cases, respectively. In this retrospective cohort, Toumai robot-assisted repair was associated with lower estimated blood loss, lower postoperative pain scores, and shorter length of stay, but longer operative time, compared with laparoscopic repair.
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.