ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Long-term outcomes of cruroplasty reinforcement with composite versus biologic mesh for gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Management of symptomatic, asymptomatic, and recurrent hiatal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Cruroplasty with or without mesh? A systematic literature review with a novel time-organized proportion meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of short-term clinical efficacy and safety between biological and synthetic meshes in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: a single-center randomized controlled trial.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Trial
- Article
- Decellularization of Small Intestinal Submucosa.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic management of large hiatal hernia: mesh method with the use of ProGrip mesh versus standard crural repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Routine use of mesh during hiatal closure is safe with no increase in adverse sequelae.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Functional Results after Repair of Large Hiatal Hernia by Use of a Biologic Mesh.Frontiers in surgery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the issue of improvement of disadvantages of different type meshes.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on 101 gastroesophageal reflux disease patients who underwent reinforcement of crura with or without prosthetic mesh. Three types of mesh, 4-ply biologic small intestine submucosa (SIS, Surgisis(®), since November 2010), 6-ply SIS (Biodesign™ Surgisis(®), since March 2011), and composite synthetic mesh (Crurasoft(®), since May 2010), were used. All patients were assigned to simple suture group (n = 35), 4-ply SIS group (n = 13), 6-ply Biodesign™ group (n = 26) or Crurasoft(®) group (n = 27). Postoperative follow-up was performed via clinical visit or phone call contact. Subjective assessment included dysphagia, patients' symptomatic outcome judgment according to Visick and patients' satisfaction. Objective evaluation included hiatal hernia recurrence according to upper endoscopy and barium contrast swallow. Follow-up was completed in 83 patients with a mean duration of 45 months (range 16-149 months).
resultsFor the objective outcomes, although anatomic recurrence of hiatal hernia did not significantly differ between groups at 6 months postoperatively, long-term results showed a protective effect of mesh implantation on hernia recurrence (p = 0.047). For the subjective outcomes, the mesh group had a more significant improvement in Visick score (p = 0.020) compared to the simple suture group. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the mesh group (p = 0.014), and subgroup analysis showed a clear trend as follows: Crurasoft(®) ≈ Biodesign(®) > SIS(®). A higher frequency of postoperative dysphagia was presented in the Crurasoft group compared with other two groups at 6 months postoperatively, but the difference was not significant over time (p = 0.227).
conclusionMesh cruroplasty results in satisfactory symptom control with a low recurrence rate. 6-ply biologic mesh is promising with respect to the reduction in anatomic recurrences. Postoperative dysphagia does not occur commonly following mesh cruroplasty with PTFE/ePTFE mesh.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26487237What 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.