TAPP or TEP? Population‐Based Analysis of Prospective Data on 4,552 Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TEP) is associated with worse outcomes than transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TAPP) continues to be a matter of debate. The objective of this large cohort study is to compare outcomes between patients undergoing TEP or TAPP. METHODS: Based on prospective data of the Swiss association of laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery, all patients undergoing unilateral TEP or TAPP between 1995 and 2006 were included. The following outcomes were compared: conversion rates, intraoperative and postoperative complications, duration of operation. RESULTS: Data on 4,552 patients undergoing TEP (n=3,457) and TAPP (n=1,095) were collected prospectively. Average age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were similar in the two groups. Patients undergoing TEP had a significantly higher rate of intraoperative complications (TEP 1.9% vs. TAPP 0.9%, p=0.029) and surgical postoperative complications (TEP: 2.3% vs. TAPP: 0.8%, p=0.003). The postoperative length of stay was longer for patients undergoing TAPP (2.9 vs. 2.3 days, p=0.002), whereas the duration of the operation was longer for TEP (66.6 vs. 59.0 min, p<0.001) and the conversion rate was higher (TEP 1.0% vs. TAPP 0.2%, p=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the first population-based analyses comparing TEP and TAPP in a prospective cohort of more than 4,500 patients. Intraoperative and surgical postoperative complications were significantly higher in patients undergoing TEP. TEP is also associated with longer operating times and higher conversion rates. Therefore, on a population-based level, the TAPP technique appears to be superior to the TEP repair in patients undergoing unilateral inguinal hernia repair.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".