Single-port versus conventional laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal XXXX : a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

@entity1 @entity547 @entity169 @entity282 @entity1118
BACKGROUND: The advantage of single-port total extra-peritoneal (TEP) @entity169 over the conventional technique is still debatable. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of TEP @entity169 using either a single-port or conventional surgical technique, in two blind randomized groups of @entity1 . METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial, 100 @entity1 undergoing surgery for unilateral @entity169 were randomized into two groups: One group underwent conventional laparoscopic TEP @entity169 , while the other was selected for single-port TEP repair. Primary endpoint is @entity282 (VAS), while secondary endpoints are recurrence, @entity1118 and complications. RESULTS: From 100 @entity1 , 49 underwent single-port @entity547 TEP repair, 50 had conventional three-port TEP @entity547 repair, and one @entity1 declined to participate after randomization. The two groups were comparable in terms of @entity1 demographics and operative findings. Mean operative time was 49.1(  13.8)  min in the conventional group and 54.1(  14.4)  min in the single-port group (p  =  0.08). Mean hospital stay was 19.7(  5.8)  h in the conventional group and 20.5(  6.4)  h in the single-port group (p  =  0.489). No major complications and no recurrence reported at 11-month follow-up. No statistically significant difference noted in @entity282 between the two groups at regular intervals. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes after laparoscopic TEP @entity169 with a single-port device are similar but not superior to the conventional technique.
