Evidence mapPaperPMID 38844780Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2024

Single-port versus traditional three-port laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: A single-centre, prospective, randomised study.

Xuen Li, Xufeng Hu, Yue Hu, Yuan Jie

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

4 authors.

Xuen LiLongshan Central Hospital, Cixi, Zhejiang, China, 315300.
Xufeng HuLongshan Central Hospital, Cixi, Zhejiang, China, 315300.
Yue HuThe First People's Hospital of Ningbo, Zhejiang, China, 315000.
Yuan JieLongshan Central Hospital, Cixi, Zhejiang, China, 315300.ORCID 0009-0008-4652-5909

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic (SIL) technique compared with the traditional three-port total extraperitoneal (TEP) technique for inguinal hernia repair.

methodsThis prospective, randomised study involved patients who underwent surgery for inguinal hernia at our hospital from December 2021 to July 2023. Patients were randomly assigned to SIL-TEP or TEP groups based on a computer-generated random number table. Perioperative clinical indicators for the surgical approaches were evaluated.

resultsOf the 127 patients eligible for study, 66 were randomised to the SIL-TEP group and 61 to the TEP group. The operation time for SIL-TEP was significantly longer than for TEP but the time to return to normal activities was significantly shorter and short-term pain score was significantly lower. There were no differences between groups in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stays, pain relief time, hospitalization costs or cosmetic satisfaction scores.

conclusionWhile SIL-TEP is more challenging than TEP for hernia repair, we found that at our centre it is comparable with regard to overall safety and feasibility. Further studies are needed to validate our findings.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyLaparoscopyLength of StayOperative TimeAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative PainProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeInguinal herniaSingle-incision laparoscopic surgeryTotal extraperitoneal repair

Identifiers

PMID38844780
PMCPMC11159553

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.