↓ Skip to main content

Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus Lichtenstein operation for primary inguinal hernia repair – A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
Title
Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) versus Lichtenstein operation for primary inguinal hernia repair – A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Surgery, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12893-017-0253-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Uwe Scheuermann, Stefan Niebisch, Orestis Lyros, Boris Jansen-Winkeln, Ines Gockel

Abstract

Transabdominal Preperitoneal (TAPP) and Lichtenstein operation are established methods for inguinal hernia repair in clinical practice. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies, comparing those two methods for repair of primary inguinal hernia, are still missing. In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials was performed to compare early and long term outcomes of the two methods. A literature search was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials, which compared TAPP and Lichtenstein repair for primary inguinal hernia. Outcome measures included duration of operation, length of hospital stay, acute postoperative and chronic pain, time to return to work, hematoma, wound infection, neuralgia, numbness, scrotal swelling, seroma and hernia recurrence. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed, using Odds Ratios (OR) or Standardized Mean Difference (SMD), and Confidence Interval (CI). Eight controlled randomized studies were identified suitable for the analysis. The mean duration of the operation was shorter in Lichtenstein repair (SMD = 6.79 min, 95% CI, -0.68 - 14.25), without significant difference. Comparing both techniques, patients of the laparoscopic group showed postoperatively significantly less chronic inguinal pain (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.78). Analyses of the remaining outcome measures did not show any significant differences between the two techniques. The results of this analysis indicate that complication rate and outcome of both procedures are comparable. TAPP operation demonstrated only one advantage over Lichtenstein operation with significantly less chronic inguinal pain postoperatively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Other 12 8%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 57 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 46%
Unspecified 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Computer Science 2 1%
Chemistry 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 63 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 May 2017.
All research outputs
#15,459,013
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#382
of 1,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,195
of 310,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#6
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,329 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 310,791 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.