SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy provides limited depth perception, which may limit performance during technically demanding operations. Three-dimensional (3D) systems offer stereoscopic vision, improving visualization. We compared 3D versus 2D systems in adults for operative time, visualization, and postoperative complications.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched through December 2025. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies of patients undergoing TAPP repair, comparing 3D with 2D laparoscopy. Total operative time was the primary outcome; visualization and postoperative complications were secondary outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and certainty of evidence using GRADE.
resultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria; five were included in the primary meta-analysis (n = 521 patients). Total operative time favored 3D (MD-18.48 min; 95% CI-29.27,-7.69; p = 0.0008), with substantial heterogeneity (I²=94%). Subgroup analysis also favored 3D in RCTs (MD-11.70; 95% CI-17.74,-5.66) and observational studies (MD-26.85; 95% CI-30.55,-23.15). Contrast favored 3D (MD 2.11; 95% CI 0.56, 3.67; p = 0.008), while sharpness was not statistically different (MD 1.49; 95% CI-0.25 to 3.24; p = 0.09). No difference in postoperative complications (MD 1.11; 95% CI 0.75, 1.65; p = 0.59).
conclusion3D laparoscopy has been proposed to improve visualization and shorten operative time; however this should be interpreted with caution due to very low certainty of evidence and variability in surgeon experience. REGISTRATION/
fundingPROSPERO CRD420251272842.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42201585What 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.