↓ Skip to main content

TAPP or TEP for Recurrent Inguinal Hernia? Population‐Based Analysis of Prospective Data on 1309 Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Repair for Recurrent Inguinal Hernia

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
TAPP or TEP for Recurrent Inguinal Hernia? Population‐Based Analysis of Prospective Data on 1309 Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Repair for Recurrent Inguinal Hernia
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00268-016-3545-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Gass, A. Scheiwiller, M. Sykora, J. Metzger

Abstract

Whether total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TEP) is associated with worse outcomes compared to transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TAPP) for the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia continues to be a matter of debate. The objective of this large cohort study is to compare complications, conversion rates and postoperative length of hospital stay between patients undergoing TEP or TAPP for unilateral recurrent inguinal hernia repair. Based on prospective data of the Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery, all patients who underwent elective TEP or TAPP for unilateral recurrent inguinal hernia between 1995 and 2006 were included. The following outcomes were compared: conversion rates, intraoperative complications, surgical postoperative complications and duration of operation. Data on 1309 patients undergoing TEP (n = 1022) and TAPP (n = 287) for recurrent inguinal hernia were prospectively collected. Average age, BMI and ASA score were similar in both groups. Patients undergoing TEP had a significantly increased rate of intraoperative complications (TEP 6.3 % vs. TAPP 2.8 %, p = 0.0225). Duration of operation was longer for patients undergoing TEP (TEP 80.3 vs. TAPP 73.0 min, p < 0.0023) while postoperative length of hospital stay was longer for patients undergoing TAPP (TEP 2.6 vs. TAPP 3.1 day, p = 0.0145). Surgical postoperative complications (TEP 3.52 % vs. TAPP 2.09 %, p = 0.2239), general postoperative complications (TEP 1.47 % vs. TAPP 0.7 %, p = 0.3081) and conversion rates (TEP 2.15 % vs. TAPP 1.39 %, p = 0.4155) were not significantly different. This study is the first population-based analysis comparing outcomes of patients with recurrent inguinal hernia undergoing TEP versus TAPP in a prospective cohort of over 1300 patients. Intraoperative complications were significantly higher in patients undergoing TEP. The TEP technique was associated with longer operating times, but a shorter postoperative length of hospital stay. Nonetheless, the absolute outcome differences are small and thus, on a population-based level, both techniques appear to be safe and effective for patients undergoing endoscopic repair for unilateral recurrent inguinal hernia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 15%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Professor 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 9 22%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 61%
Unspecified 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Unknown 13 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,423,738
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#1,482
of 4,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,209
of 298,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#20
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 298,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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 74% of its contemporaries.