| Title |
Transabdominal Pre‐Peritoneal Versus Open Repair for Primary Unilateral Inguinal Hernia: A Meta‐analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-017-4288-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James J. Wu, Joshua A. Way, Guy D. Eslick, Michael R. Cox |
| Abstract |
Recent NICE guidelines recommend open surgical approaches for the treatment of primary unilateral inguinal hernias. However, many surgeons perform a laparoscopic approach based on the advantages of less post-operative pain and faster recovery. Our aim was to examine current evidence comparing transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) laparoscopic repair and open surgical repair for primary inguinal hernias. A systematic search of six electronic databases was conducted for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAPP and open repair for primary unilateral inguinal hernia. A random-effects model was used to combine the data. A total of 13 RCTs were identified, with 1310 patients receiving TAPP repair and 1331 patients receiving open repair. There was no significant difference between the two groups for rates of haematoma (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.49-1.71; P = 0.78), seroma (RR 1.90; 95% CI 0.87-4.14; P = 0.10), urinary retention (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.36-2.76; P = 0.99), infection (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.29-1.28; P = 0.19), and hernia recurrence (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.42-1.07; P = 0.10). TAPP repair had a significantly lower rate of paraesthesia (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.08-0.50; P = 0.0005), shorter bed stay (2.4 ± 1.4 vs 3.1 ± 1.6 days, P = 0.0006), and shorter return to normal activities (9.5 ± 7.9 vs 17.3 ± 8.4 days, P < 0.00001). Our findings demonstrated that TAPP repair did not have higher rate of morbidity or hernia recurrence and is an equivalent approach to open repair, with the advantages of faster recovery and reduced paraesthesia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 20% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 53% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,513,622
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#2,545
of 4,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,802
of 325,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#58
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 325,473 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.