The role of the laparoendoscopic single site totally extraperitoneal approach to inguinal hernia repairs: a review and meta-analysis of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) surgery may have perceived benefits of reduced visible scarring compared to conventional laparoscopic (LAP) totally extraperitoneal (TEP) hernia repairs. We reviewed the literature to compare LESS TEP inguinal hernia repairs with LAP TEP repairs. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for research published between January 2008 and January 2012. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies reported on 325 patients. The duration of surgery was 40-98 minutes for unilateral hernia and 41-121 minutes for bilateral repairs. Three studies involving 287 patients compared LESS TEP (n = 128) with LAP TEP (n = 159). There were no significant differences in operative duration for unilateral hernias (p = 0.63) or bilateral repairs (p = 0.29), and there were no significant differences in hospital stay (p > 0.99), intraoperative complications (p = 0.82) or early recurrence rates (p = 0.82). There was a trend toward earlier return to activity in the LESS TEP group (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Laparoendoscopic single site surgery TEP hernia repair is a relatively new technique and appears to be safe and effective. Advantages, such as less visible scarring, mean patients may opt for LESS TEP over LAP TEP. Further studies with clear definitions of outcome measures and robust follow-up to assess patient satisfaction, return to normal daily activities and recurrence are needed to strengthen the evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".