ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2011
Trans-fascial laparoscopic mesh fixation: a procedural comparison using the standard suture passer versus iMESH stitcher™ device.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparocopic ventral hernia repair with primary transparietal closure of the hernial defect.BMC surgery · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopic mesh repair has become an increasingly common method for repairing incisional hernias. The current method for fixating mesh to the abdominal wall includes tacking the mesh to the peritoneum and fascia and suturing the mesh to the fascia with trans-fascial sutures. The iMESH Stitcher™ is a stitching device developed to both simplify and expedite this procedure by passing the suture from one arm of the iMESH stitcher™ to the other. The device enables a stitch to be created in three quick moves using only one hand. We compared both the efficacy and procedure time of trans-fascial mesh fixation when performed with the iMESH stitcher™ as compared to the standard suture passer method.
methodsA mesh patch was installed on the internal abdominal wall of two pigs. Surgical residents and Medical students were participants in the study and were trained in both techniques. Each participant was asked to perform six fixations with each technique. The procedural time required for both fixation techniques was recorded. Participants were asked to assess subjectively the relative difficulty of each technique on a scale of 1-10 (10 = most difficult).
resultsSixteen residents and students performed a total of 12 mesh fixations, each performing 6 fixations with each technique. Average mesh fixation suture time using the suture passer technique was 44 s for residents and 47 s for students. Average fixation suture time using the iMESH stitcherTM was 17 s for residents and 15 s for students. The average difficulty score for the suture passer technique was 6.1 as compared to 2.9 with iMESH stitcher™.
conclusionTrans-fascial fixation with the iMESH Stitcher™ took significantly less time than the standard suture passer method. The iMESH Stitcher™ significantly simplifies the procedure of transfascial fixation and potentially reduces technical difficulties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.