Trial reportInternational surgery
ULTRAPRO Hernia System versus lichtenstein repair in treatment of primary inguinal hernias: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Trial report in International surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- International guidelines for groin hernia management.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018Guideline
- Trial
- Beyond acronyms: a domain-based structural analysis of abdominal wall hernia repair techniques in the contemporary literature.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- How Reproducible Are Abdominal Wall Surgical Techniques? A Methodological Assessment of Technical Reporting in the Contemporary Literature.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
- Repair of a medium-sized ventral hernia with the UltraPro Hernia System.Surgery today · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Lichtenstein repair has been recommended as the gold standard for inguinal hernia repair. However, postoperative discomfort still constitutes a concern and an area for improvement. New mesh materials have been continuously introduced to achieve this goal. The goal of the present study was to investigate the outcomes of ULTRAPRO Hernia System (UHS) compared with Lichtenstein mesh repair. A total of 99 male patients with primary unilateral inguinal hernia were included in the study during the period of September 2010-January 2012. Patients with body mass index>30, comorbid diseases, and anesthetic risk of ASA-III and ASA-IV were excluded. The patients were randomly allocated to operation with the Lichtenstein technique (group L) or UHS. Demographics, operative and postoperative/recovery data, and short- and medium-term outcomes of the patients were recorded. A total of 50 patients in group L and 49 patients in group UHS were analyzed. The median follow-up time for the study was 33 months. There were no significant differences regarding demographics, complications, and rehabilitation between the groups. Overall, there was a prolonged operation time in the UHS group compared with the L group (UHS: 53.7±5.7 minutes; L: 44.5±5.5 minutes; P<0.001). UHS may provide results similar to those for the Lichtenstein technique in open repair of inguinal hernias regarding perioperative course, complications, recovery, and recurrence rates. However, because of reduced costs and the lack of need for the exploration of the preperitoneal space, we conclude that the Lichtenstein technique should be recommended as the first choice.
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.