ArticleBMC surgery2012
Repeated in vivo inguinal measurements to estimate a single optimal mesh size for inguinal herniorrhaphy.
Article in BMC surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fixation free laparoscopic obliteration of inguinal hernia defects with the 3D dynamic responsive scaffold ProFlor.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Individual mesh size for open anterior inguinal hernia repair: an anthropometric study in Turkish male patients.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019Article
- The Ideal Size of Mesh for Open Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Morphometric Study in Patients with Inguinal Hernia.Cureus · 2018Article
- Ethnicity-related differences in inguinal canal dimensions between African and Caucasian populations and their potential impact on the mesh size for open and laparoscopic groin hernia repair in low-resource countries in Africa.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInguinal hernia is a common condition and its repair (herniorrhaphy) is one of the most commonly performed procedures in general surgery. The Lichtenstein herniorrhaphy technique is a widely used and effective surgery that uses mesh to reinforce the area of weakness. Although a wide range of mesh sizes are available for use in hernia repair, in low-resource health care settings the provision of multiple products may not be supportable and it may be necessary for the provision and use of a single mesh size. This study aimed to determine whether the recommended 7.0 cm x 15.0 cm size is an appropriate single mesh size.
methodsIn order to determine the optimal mesh size according to recommended surgical practices, in vivo measurements of key dimensions of the inguinal floor were taken in patients undergoing herniorrhaphy.
resultsMeasurements were taken in 43 patients: 40 men and 3 women, mean age 43 years (SD 13.6); 39 with indirect hernias, 4 with direct. Allowing for recommended mesh overlaps, the optimal mesh size for provision to be appropriate for the majority of patients was determined to be 8.5 cm x 14.0 cm, 21% wider than the mesh size currently recommended for use in Lichtenstein herniorrhaphy.
conclusionsAn appropriate size for routine provision in low-resource settings, or other settings where the provision of several mesh sizes is not supportable, may be 8.5 cm x 14.0 cm.
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.