Transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) vs endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) procedure in unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial
Hernia, ISSN: 1248-9204, Vol: 27, Issue: 1, Page: 119-125
2023
- 7Citations
- 39Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations7
- Citation Indexes7
- Captures39
- Readers39
- 39
Article Description
Purpose: The Lichtenstein hernioplasty has long been seen as the gold standard for inguinal hernia repair. Unfortunately, this repair is often associated with chronic pain, up to 10–35%. Therefore, several new techniques have been developed, such as the transinguinal preperitoneal patch (TIPP) and the endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) technique. Several studies showed beneficial results of the TIPP and TEP compared to the Lichtenstein hernioplasty; however, little is published on the outcome when comparing the TIPP and TEP procedures. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes after the TIPP vs the TEP technique for inguinal hernia repair. Methods: A single-center randomized controlled trial was carried out between 2015 and 2020. A total of 300 patients with unilateral inguinal hernia were enrolled and randomized to the TIPP- or TEP technique. Primary outcome was chronic pain (defined as any pain following the last 3 months) and quality of life, assessed with Carolinas comfort scale (CCS) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were: wound infection, wound hypoesthesia, recurrence, readmission within 30 days, and reoperation. Results: A total of 300 patients were randomized (150 per group). After a follow-up of 12 months, we observed significantly less postoperative chronic groin pain, chronic pain at exertion, wound hypoesthesia, and wound infections after the TEP when compared to the TIPP procedure. No significant differences in quality of life, reoperations, recurrence rate, and readmission within 30 days were observed. Conclusion: We showed that the TEP has a favorable outcome compared to the TIPP procedure, leading to less postoperative pain and wound complications, whereas recurrence rates and reoperations were equal in both the groups.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85135346472&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02651-5; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35925503; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10029-022-02651-5; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02651-5; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10029-022-02651-5
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know