Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42527734›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026

Laparoscopic versus robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial.

Shanto Shila Guha, Mahaveer Singh Rodha, Ramkaran Chaudhary, Mayank Badkur, Naveen Sharma, Sagar S Kamat, Siddhi Chawla

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Shanto Shila GuhaDepartment of Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India.
Mahaveer Singh RodhaDepartment of Trauma and Emergency (Surgery), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India.
Ramkaran ChaudharyDepartment of Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India.
Mayank BadkurDepartment of Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India.
Naveen SharmaDepartment of Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India.
Sagar S KamatDepartment of Paediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-9469-1904
Siddhi ChawlaDepartment of Trauma and Emergency (Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005, India. Siddhi.chawla870@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7841-6987

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) has emerged as an alternative to laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair, offering improved ergonomics and dexterity. However, evidence comparing early outcomes between the two approaches, particularly in the Indian population, remains limited.

methodsA single-center, parallel arm, participant- and assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted between January 2022 and June 2023 after institutional ethics approval (AIIMS/IEC/2022/3928) and trial registration (CTRI/2022/07/043873). A total of 101 adult patients with uncomplicated inguinal hernia were randomized (2:1) to laparoscopic TAPP (n = 67) or robotic TAPP (n = 34). The primary outcome was postoperative pain assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 3, 6, and 12 h. Secondary outcomes included operative time, peritoneal flap dissection time, time to resume normal activities, and postoperative complications up to 4 weeks.

resultsBaseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups. No significant differences were observed in postoperative pain scores at 3, 6, and 12 h, with mean differences (robotic minus laparoscopic) of 0.28 (95% CI, - 0.34 to 0.90; p = 0.261), - 0.16 (95% CI, - 0.69 to 0.37; p = 0.733), and 0.32 (95% CI, - 0.15 to 0.79; p = 0.307), respectively. The requirement for rescue analgesia was similar between the groups (20.6% vs. 17.9%; absolute risk difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -13.7% to 19.1%; p = 0.744). Total operative time and time to resumption of normal daily activities did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.142 and p = 0.180, respectively). Postoperative complication rates, including pain, seroma, and surgical site infection, were not significantly different between the groups at both the 1-week and 4-week follow-up.

conclusionsRobotic TAPP was not superior to laparoscopic TAPP for early postoperative pain, operative duration, return to normal activities, or short-term complications. Given the similar clinical outcomes and higher resource demands, the routine adoption of robotic TAPP in low-resource settings remains debatable. Larger, multicentre studies with longer follow-up are warranted.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainSingle-Blind MethodInguinal herniaLaparoscopic surgeryMinimally invasive surgeryRandomized controlled trialRobotic surgeryTransabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP)

Identifiers

PMID42527734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.