Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25651955›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2015

Quality of Life Following Repair of Large Hiatal Hernia is Improved but not Influenced by Use of Mesh: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Jan H Koetje, Tanya Irvine, Sarah K Thompson, Peter G Devitt, Simon D Woods, Ahmad Aly, Glyn G Jamieson, David I Watson

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Use of absorbable meshes in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2019
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Crura augmentation with Bio-AHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2017
    Observational
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. [Report of 12 years experience in the surgical treatment of 286 paraesophageal hernias].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016
    Article
  18. Review
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

8 authors.

Jan H KoetjeFlinders University Department of Surgery, Room 3D211, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Australia.
Tanya Irvine
Sarah K Thompson
Peter G Devitt
Simon D Woods
Ahmad Aly
Glyn G Jamieson
David I Watson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLaparoscopic surgery is the treatment of choice for repair of large hiatus hernia, but can be followed by recurrence. Repair with prosthetic mesh has been recommended to prevent recurrence, although complications following mesh repair have generated disagreement about whether or not mesh should be used. The early objective and clinical results of a randomized trial of repair with mesh versus sutures have been reported, and revealed few differences. In the current study, we evaluated quality of life outcomes within this trial at follow-up to 2 years.

methodsIn a multicenter prospective double-blind randomized trial three methods for repair of large hiatus hernia were compared: sutures versus repair with absorbable mesh (Surgisis) versus non-absorbable (Timesh). Quality of life assessment using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire was undertaken at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. SF-36 outcomes (8 individual scales and 2 composite scales) were determined for each group, and compared between groups, and across different follow-up points.

results126 patients were enrolled-43 sutures, 41 absorbable mesh and 42 non-absorbable mesh. 115 (91.3%) completed a preoperative questionnaire, and 113 (89.7%) completed the post-operative questionnaire at 3 months, 116 (92.1%) at 6 months, 114 (90.5%) at 12 months, and 91 (72.2%) at 24 months. The SF-36 Physical and Mental Component Scores (PCS and MCS) improved significantly following surgery, and this improvement was sustained across 24 months follow-up (p < 0.001 for PCS and MCS at each follow-up point). There were no significant differences between the groups for the component scores or the eight SF-36 subscale scores at each follow-up time. 29 individuals had a recurrence at 6 months follow-up, of which 9 were symptomatic. The PCS were higher in patients with recurrence versus without (p < 0.01), and in patients with a symptomatic recurrence versus asymptomatic recurrence versus no recurrence (p = 0.001).

conclusionSF-36 measured quality of life improved significantly after repair of large hiatal hernia at up to 2 years follow-up, and there were no differences in outcome for the different repair techniques. The use of mesh versus no mesh in repair of large hiatal hernia did not influence quality of life.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeSurgical MeshAgedDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHernia, HiatalHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyMalePostoperative PeriodProspective StudiesRecurrenceSurveys and QuestionnairesSutures

Identifiers

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.