ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
A randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic extended view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair with totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair for primary inguinal hernia.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair has been commonly practiced for over 30 years to manage inguinal hernias. Extended view totally extraperitoneal repair (eTEP) is a newer procedure reported to provide larger extraperitoneal space particularly in patients with shorter body habitus. Data evaluating laparoscopic eTEP and TEP is limited in literature. This study was conducted to compare these procedures in patients with primary inguinal hernia. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-one patients were randomized into two groups (eTEP = 26 and TEP = 25). Operative time was used as primary endpoint. Complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay, return to activities of daily living, and return to work were secondary endpoints. All patients were followed up for 12 months for recurrence and complications.
resultsMean operative time in eTEP (51.56 ± 5.14 min) was significantly lower than TEP (57.48 ± 5.54 min) (p < 0.000). Operative time in cases with accidental pneumoperitoneum was significantly shorter in 3/26 cases of eTEP as compared to 5/25 cases of TEP (p = 0.045). Mean pain scores in eTEP group were significantly lower in comparison with TEP at 6 and 12 h postoperatively (p = 0.032 and 0.034, respectively). Return to activities of daily living and return to work were significantly earlier in eTEP (p = 0.002 and 0.003, respectively). No recurrence was seen in either group at 12 months.
conclusionOperative time was significantly less in eTEP patients, indicating that wider dissection of extraperitoneal space led to better understanding of anatomy, allowing unhindered dissection even in cases with accidental pneumoperitoneum. Reduced pain in the immediate postoperative period in eTEP group was associated with earlier return to activities of daily living and earlier return to work. In this study, eTEP performed comparably to TEP in all respects, with favorable operative times, reduced postoperative pain, and earlier resumption of work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2023/03/050681.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42576081What 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.