ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2020
Do we really need three-dimensional convex inguinal hernia meshes?
Article 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 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Conversion of 2-dimensional to 3-dimensional mesh for resource-limited centres in developing countries.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- Is mesh fixation necessary in laparoendoscopic techniques for M3 inguinal defects? An experimental study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of our study was to assess the anatomical variability in the curvature of the muscles in inguinal region and to determine the necessity of using three-dimensional convex-shape hernia meshes in spite of typical flat ones.
methodsThe group analyzed consisted of 180 patients with no abnormalities in inguinal region: 30 males and 30 females for every subgroup, with decreased, normal, and increased BMI. For every patient a 3D software model of muscles in the inguinal region was built, based on the segmentation of pelvic CT images and its outer surface determining the shape of the hernia mesh was created. Correlation was tested between the diameter of sphere describing the shape, the height of mesh top, and BMI. The optimal number and diameter of prefabricated hernia mesh set was obtained.
resultsOnly a moderate correlation (r = - 0.32) was found between the diameter of sphere and BMI in females and between the height of the mesh top and BMI in females (r = 0.43) and in the whole group of patients (r = 0.33). Accepting fitting error < 5 mm for 62 from 180 cases there was no need to use a convex-shape hernia mesh, for the other cases one of 3 prefabricated hernia meshes with diameters: 854 mm, 434 mm, 298 mm was sufficient.
conclusionsFor about one-third of patients a commonly used flat hernia mesh is adequate, for the rest of the cases one of 3 convex-shape meshes is sufficient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31773553What 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.