SynthesisUpdates in surgery2023
Meta‑analysis of single-incision laparoscopic versus multi-trocar laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair.
Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-port versus traditional three-port laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: A single-centre, prospective, randomised study.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Trial
- Operative time and recurrence across five techniques of inguinal hernia repair: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Enhanced recovery after surgery-guided strategies in single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernioplasty for inguinal hernia: a narrative review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (SIL-TEP) inguinal hernia repair is similar or superior to multi-trocar laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (MTL-TEP) inguinal hernia repair is controversial. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the safety, efficacy and cosmetic effect of the two surgical methods. We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Embase database and PubMed database for published studies on SIL-TEP and MTL-TEP inguinal hernia repair. The studies were screened and evaluated for quality according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. Twenty studies were included, including 7 randomized controlled studies and 13 nonrandomized controlled studies. Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between SIL-TEP and MTL-TEP inguinal hernia repair in terms of unilateral operation time (P = 0.12), bilateral operation time (P = 0.72), pain score on the first day after operation (P = 0.61], chronic pain rate (P = 0.61), total complication rate (P = 0.26), hospital stay (P = 0.72), and recurrence rate (P = 0.83), but the cosmetic effect score (P = 0.002) was higher in the former. These findings demonstrate that SIL-TEP inguinal hernia repair is safe, reliable and feasible. In addition, it can result in a better cosmetic effect of the incision than MTL-TEP inguinal hernia repair. SIL-TEP inguinal hernia repair should be considered for patients with stricter cosmetic requirements.Clinical trial registration: INPLASY2022110085.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37640967What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.