SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2020
Open tensionless repair techniques for inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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 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.
- Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation Reduces Pathological Sensation of Mesh One Week after Open Inguinal Hernia Surgery: Follow-Up Results from a Randomized, Double Blind and Placebo-Controlled Trial.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Trial
- Comment to: Meta-analysis of the outcomes of trans rectus sheath extra-peritoneal procedure (TREPP) for inguinal hernia.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Article
- Review
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
backgroundLichtenstein repair (LR), mesh-plug repair (MPR), and prolene hernia system (PHS) are three common open tensionless repair techniques for inguinal hernia (IH); each technique has its supporters and controversies never stop. It is necessary to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical efficacy of these three open tensionless repair techniques.
methodsRCTs comparing at least any two of the three open tensionless repair techniques for IH were searched in online databases. Literature screening and quality assessment were carried out basing on the established inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. Statistical analyses were carried out using RevMan software 5.3. The primary outcomes were recurrence, chronic pain and time to return to work. Secondary outcomes were inguinal paresthesia, testicular and scrotal problems, hematoma, seroma and wound infection.
resultsTwenty-two references on fifteen RCTs involving a total of 3716 hernias were selected for the meta-analysis. In these trials, seven comparing LR and MPR, five comparing LR and PHS, and three comparing LR, MPR and PHS. All primary and secondary outcomes could be pooled analyzed in comparison of MPR and PHS with LR, while only two primary outcomes (recurrence and chronic pain) and one secondary outcome (wound infection) could be pooled analyzed in comparison of MPR with PHS. Results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that MPR and PHS were comparable to LR in all primary and secondary outcomes, and MPR and PHS were comparable in terms of recurrence, chronic pain and wound infection.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis indicates that MPR and PHS seem comparable to LR in terms of recurrence, chronic pain, time to return to work, inguinal paresthesia, testicular and scrotal problems, hematoma, seroma and wound infection. MPR and PHS seem comparable in terms of recurrence, chronic pain and wound infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31820185What 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.