SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2013
Mesh size in Lichtenstein repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the importance of mesh size.
Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04269330 (Comparison of Size Mesh and Undersized Mesh in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
Comparison of Size Mesh and Undersized Mesh in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Prospective, Randomized Study
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lichtenstein Repair and Intersurgeon Variations: A Textbook Review and Multicenter Surgeon Survey.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Three-dimensional reconstruction under computed tomography and myopectineal orifice measurement under laparoscopy for quality control of inguinal hernia treatment.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Lichtenstein technique for inguinal hernia repair: ten recommendations to optimize surgical outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- The Lichtenstein technique is being used adequately in inguinal hernia repair: national analysis and review of the surgical technique.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2023Review
- Three-dimensional visualization and measurement of myopectineal orifice in non-inguinal hernia patients.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2020Article
- 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
- Causes of recurrences after open inguinal herniorrhaphy.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019Review
- Surgical risk factors for recurrence in inguinal hernia repair - a review of the literature.Innovative surgical sciences · 2017Review
- Description of robotically assisted single-site transabdominal preperitoneal (RASS-TAPP) inguinal hernia repair and presentation of clinical outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSmall mesh size has been recognized as one of the factors responsible for recurrence after Lichtenstein hernia repair due to insufficient coverage or mesh shrinkage. The Lichtenstein Hernia Institute recommends a 7 × 15 cm mesh that can be trimmed up to 2 cm from the lateral side. We performed a systematic review to determine surgeons' mesh size preference for the Lichtenstein hernia repair and made a meta-analysis to determine the effect of mesh size, mesh type, and length of follow-up time on recurrence.
methodsTwo medical databases, PubMed and ISI Web of Science, were systematically searched using the key word "Lichtenstein repair." All full text papers were selected. Publications mentioning mesh size were brought for further analysis. A mesh surface area of 90 cm(2) was accepted as the threshold for defining the mesh as small or large. Also, a subgroup analysis for recurrence pooled proportion according to the mesh size, mesh type, and follow-up period was done.
resultsIn total, 514 papers were obtained. There were no prospective or retrospective clinical studies comparing mesh size and clinical outcome. A total of 141 papers were duplicated in both databases. As a result, 373 papers were obtained. The full text was available in over 95 % of papers. Only 41 (11.2 %) papers discussed mesh size. In 29 studies, a mesh larger than 90 cm(2) was used. The most frequently preferred commercial mesh size was 7.5 × 15 cm. No papers mentioned the size of the mesh after trimming. There was no information about the relationship between mesh size and patient BMI. The pooled proportion in recurrence for small meshes was 0.0019 (95 % confidence interval: 0.007-0.0036), favoring large meshes to decrease the chance of recurrence. Recurrence becomes more marked when follow-up period is longer than 1 year (p < 0.001). Heavy meshes also decreased recurrence (p = 0.015).
conclusionThis systematic review demonstrates that the size of the mesh used in Lichtenstein hernia repair is rarely discussed in clinical studies. Papers that discuss mesh size appear to reflect a trend to comply with the latest recommendations to use larger mesh. Standard heavy meshes decrease the recurrence in hernia repair. Even though there is no evidence, it seems that large meshes decrease recurrence rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23142904What 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.