Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18398650›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2008

Sixty-month follow-up after endoscopic inguinal hernia repair with three types of mesh: a prospective randomized trial.

Mike Ralf Langenbach, Johannes Schmidt, Burkhard Ubrig, Hubert Zirngibl

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Lightweight versus heavyweight in inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2012
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Causes of recurrence in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Which mesh for hernia repair?Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2010
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mike Ralf LangenbachDepartment of Surgery, Helios Klinikum Wuppertal, University of Witten-Herdecke, Heusner-Strasse 40, 42283, Wuppertal, Germany. mike-ralf.langenbach@helios-kliniken.de
Johannes Schmidt
Burkhard Ubrig
Hubert Zirngibl
Helios Universitätsklinikum Wuppertal · DEWitten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis prospective, clinical, randomized, double-blind study was intended to investigate the impact of the structure and the amount of polypropylene (PP) mesh used in laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplastic (TAPP) on physical function and life quality.

methods180 male patients with primary inguinal hernia undergoing TAPP were randomized for using a heavyweight (108 g/m(2)), double-filament PP mesh (Prolene, 10 x 15 cm, group A, n = 60), a multifilament, heavyweight variant (116 g/m(2)) of PP mesh (Serapren, 10 x 15 cm, group B, n = 60), or a composite mesh (polyglactin and PP) (Vypro II, 10 x 15 cm, group C, n = 60). We compared in terms of complications (seromas, recurrence rate) and life quality (pain development, physical function). The development of life quality was documented according to the SF-36 Health Survey. The follow-up period was 60 months.

resultsThe recurrence rate (2.2% overall) during 60-month follow-up was not significantly different between the groups. Convalescence in group A was slower than in groups B and C: mean-term values of the visual scales for pain development were significantly (p < 0.05) higher, incapacity for work was 8.2 days longer, and urological adverse effects were stronger. The mean-term development of life quality was significantly lower in group A up to 12th week postoperatively. There were no significant differences between groups B and C. Beyond the 12th postinterventional week the differences diminished.

conclusionsThe composite mesh does not provide an advantage concerning physical function or pain development in comparison to the multifilament, heavyweight, pure polypropylene mesh. Independently of which mesh was implanted 5% of patients are still suffering from discomfort after 5 years.

Indexed as

LaparoscopySurgical MeshDouble-Blind MethodFollow-Up StudiesHernia, InguinalHumansMaleMiddle AgedPolypropylenesPostoperative PainPostoperative PeriodQuality of LifeRecurrenceUrologic DiseasesWork Capacity EvaluationPolypropylenes

Identifiers

PMID18398650
OpenAlexW1964718270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.