Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31367963›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2020

Lightweight mesh versus heavyweight mesh for laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

F Wu, X Zhang, Y Liu, D Cao, Y Yu, Y Ma

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Does the Type of Permanent Mesh Matter for Inguinal Hernia Repair?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Lightweight versus heavyweight synthetic mesh for inguinal hernia repair.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Retrospective analysis of open preperitoneal mesh repair of complex inguinal hernias.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
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

6 authors.

F WuThe First Clinical Medical School, Lanzhou University, 199 west Donggang road, Chengguan district, Lanzhou City, Gansu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6495-4909
X ZhangDepartment of Surgery/Hernia Clinic, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, 1 west Donggang road, Chengguan district, Lanzhou City, Gansu, China.
Y LiuCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine, National Center for Children's Health, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 56 Nanlish Road, Xicheng district, Beijing, China.
D CaoDepartment of Surgery/Hernia Clinic, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, 1 west Donggang road, Chengguan district, Lanzhou City, Gansu, China.
Y YuDepartment of Surgery/Hernia Clinic, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, 1 west Donggang road, Chengguan district, Lanzhou City, Gansu, China. ylongy@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5025-4047
Y MaThe First Clinical Medical School, Lanzhou University, 199 west Donggang road, Chengguan district, Lanzhou City, Gansu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to determine if the prognoses of inguinal hernia patients improved with the application of lightweight mesh (LWM).

methodsMedline, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled trails related to laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair with different prosthetic meshes. Data were extracted and analyzed using the guidelines of the Cochrane handbook. The primary endpoints were recurrence and chronic postoperative inguinal pain. The second endpoints encompassed acute postoperative pain, foreign body sensation, seroma, infection, and numbness. Data were processed using Review Manager 5.3.

resultsThe heavyweight mesh (HWM) had a distinctive advantage for recurrence (RR 2.30; 95% CI 1.21-4.38; P = 0.01), with comparable results for postoperative pain (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.37-2.22; P = 0.83), foreign body sensation (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.91-1.51; P = 0.21), seroma(RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.75-1.01; P = 0.06), infection (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.31-2.34; P = 0.75), and numbness, compared to LWM.

conclusionHWM had a distinctive advantage over LWM with regard to recurrence. The two types of prosthetic meshes had equivalent outcomes for postoperative pain, seroma, foreign body sensation, infection, and numbness. Studies focused on defect sizes and fixation methods are warranted for further stratification.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphyLaparoscopySurgical MeshEquipment DesignHernia, InguinalHumansPostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicEndoscopic surgeryHernioplastyInguinal herniaLaparoscopic surgeryRecurrenceSurgical mesh

Identifiers

PMID31367963

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.