Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20501011›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2010

Which mesh for hernia repair?

C N Brown, J G Finch

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 115 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
115citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

115 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mesh versus non-mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. What do we know about titanized polypropylene meshes? An evidence-based review of the literature.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2014
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. "Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh".Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

55 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

C N BrownNorthampton General Hospital, Cliftonville, Northampton, UK. clrnbrown@doctors.org.uk
J G Finch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe concept of using a mesh to repair hernias was introduced over 50 years ago. Mesh repair is now standard in most countries and widely accepted as superior to primary suture repair. As a result, there has been a rapid growth in the variety of meshes available and choosing the appropriate one can be difficult. This article outlines the general properties of meshes and factors to be considered when selecting one. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a search of the medical literature from 1950 to 1 May 2009, as indexed by Medline, using the PubMed search engine (www.pubmed.gov). To capture all potentially relevant articles with the highest degree of sensitivity, the search terms were intentionally broad. We used the following terms: 'mesh, pore size, strength, recurrence, complications, lightweight, properties'. We also hand-searched the bibliographies of relevant articles and product literature to identify additional pertinent reports. RESULTS AND

conclusionsThe most important properties of meshes were found to be the type of filament, tensile strength and porosity. These determine the weight of the mesh and its biocompatibility. The tensile strength required is much less than originally presumed and light-weight meshes are thought to be superior due to their increased flexibility and reduction in discomfort. Large pores are also associated with a reduced risk of infection and shrinkage. For meshes placed in the peritoneal cavity, consideration should also be given to the risk of adhesion formation. A variety of composite meshes have been promoted to address this, but none appears superior to the others. Finally, biomaterials such as acellular dermis have a place for use in infected fields but have yet to prove their worth in routine hernia repair.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphySurgical MeshBiocompatible MaterialsHumansMaterials TestingPorosityTensile StrengthBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID20501011
PMCPMC3025220

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.