ArticleScientific reports2026
Assessing the learning curve in laparoscopic TAPP repair for emergency inguinal hernia: a comparative study with open repair.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency inguinal hernia repair presents considerable surgical challenges, with a continuous debate regarding the best approach. This study analyzes the outcomes of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair in comparison to open tension-free repair, while also assessing the learning curve associated with TAPP. A retrospective study was conducted on 71 patients undergoing emergency inguinal hernia repair (33 TAPP, 38 open). Outcomes included operative time, intraoperative complications, pain scores, hospital stay, return to activity, recurrence, and learning curve analysis comparing early (first 18) vs. late (last 15) TAPP cases. Operative time was longer with TAPP (98.3 ± 9.4vs.80.3 ± 11.4 min, p = 0.006), with a 6.1% conversion rate. Visceral injuries were more common in TAPP (15.2%vs.2.6%, p = 0.058), while vascular injuries were higher in open repair (10.5%vs.3.0%, p = 0.218). TAPP had significantly lower pain scores at 6, 12, and 24 h (p < 0.05), shorter hospital stay (2.5 ± 0.5vs.4.8 ± 0.8 days, p = 0.001), and earlier return to activities (5.5 ± 0.5vs.10.5 ± 1.0 days, p = 0.001). Recurrence and readmission rates were comparable. Later TAPP cases showed shorter operative time (93.4 vs. 102.4 min, p = 0.002), no conversions, and better pain control. TAPP is a feasible emergency repair option, for selected cases, with a clear learning curve which improves outcomes after 15-18 cases. However, larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.
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.