| Title |
TEP or TAPP for recurrent inguinal hernia repair—register-based comparison of the outcome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5416-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
F. Köckerling, R. Bittner, A. Kuthe, M. Hukauf, F. Mayer, R. Fortelny, C. Schug-Pass |
| Abstract |
The guidelines of the international hernia societies recommend laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair for recurrent hernias after open primary repair. To date, no randomized trials have been conducted to compare the TEP vs TAPP outcome for recurrent inguinal hernia repair. A Swiss registry study identified only minor differences between the two techniques, thus suggesting the equivalence of the two procedures. Between September 1, 2009 and August 31, 2013 data were entered into the Herniamed Registry on a total of 2246 patients with recurrent inguinal hernia repair following previous open primary operation in either TAPP (n = 1,464) or TEP technique (n = 782). Univariable and multivariable analysis did not find any significant difference between TEP and TAPP with regard to the intraoperative complications, complication-related reoperations, re-recurrences, pain at rest, pain on exertion, or chronic pain requiring treatment. The only difference identified was a significantly higher postoperative seroma rate after TAPP, which was influenced by the surgical technique, previous open primary operation and EHS-classification medial and responded to conservative treatment. TEP and TAPP are equivalent surgical techniques for recurrent inguinal hernia repair following previous open primary operation. The choice of technique should be tailored to the surgeon's expertise. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | 11% |
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 67% |
| Scientists | 3 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 21% |
| Unknown | 22 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 55% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 22 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,879,698
of 24,796,946 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#335
of 6,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,595
of 430,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#10
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,796,946 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,659 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.