Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32232645›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2021

A preliminary evaluation of two different meshes in minimally invasive inguinal hernia surgery.

Jordan A Bilezikian, Paul L Tenzel, Robert G Johnson, William F Powers, William W Hope

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01825187 (Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Resident Performance and Clinical Outcomes With Two Different Polypropylene Meshes for Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernias), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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.

NCT01825187 nacompletednot on this map

Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Resident Performance and Clinical Outcomes With Two Different Polypropylene Meshes for Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernias

TypeinterventionalSponsorSouth East Area Health Education Center, Wilmington, NCRan2014 to 2020Enrolled75ConditionsHernia, InguinalArmsULTRAPRO Mesh, 3DMAX, Evaluation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jordan A BilezikianDepartment of Surgery, New Hanover Regional Medical Center, 2131 South 17th Street, Wilmington, NC, 28402, USA.
Paul L TenzelDepartment of Surgery, New Hanover Regional Medical Center, 2131 South 17th Street, Wilmington, NC, 28402, USA.
Robert G JohnsonDepartment of Surgery, New Hanover Regional Medical Center, 2131 South 17th Street, Wilmington, NC, 28402, USA.
William F PowersDepartment of Surgery, New Hanover Regional Medical Center, 2131 South 17th Street, Wilmington, NC, 28402, USA.
William W HopeDepartment of Surgery, New Hanover Regional Medical Center, 2131 South 17th Street, Wilmington, NC, 28402, USA. William.Hope@nhrmc.org.
New Hanover Regional Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany meshes are available for use in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. The surgeon must consider several factors when choosing a mesh for hernia repair including clinical outcomes, cost, and ease of use. The purpose of this study was to compare two different lightweight polypropylene meshes for laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repairs.

methodsSubjects were randomized immediately before surgery. Data were reported in N (%) and median [Q1-Q3], comparisons of mesh insertion time were tested using a 2 × 2 ANOVA on the ranked times, comparisons between categorical variables were tested with Fisher's Exact, and all data were analyzed using SAS® 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc.).

resultsBetween January 2015 and June 2016, 50 subjects were enrolled; two were excluded. Of 48 eligible subjects, most were Caucasian (N = 42, 88%), male (N = 37, 77%), with a median age of 63, and were randomized evenly between 3DMax™ mesh and Ultrapro® mesh. Robotic mesh placement significantly increased insertion time regardless of mesh type (p < .0001). When comparing NASA-TLX self-assessment surveys, there was no significant difference between the meshes in difficulty of placement. The type of mesh did not significantly impact the insertion time regardless of robot use (p = 0.523).

conclusionOur data demonstrate that mesh insertion times comparing two different lightweight polypropylene meshes were not significantly different. Increased insertion times associated with robotic repair are likely due to the mechanics of robotic suturing and associated learning curve. Our data suggest that these meshes can be used interchangeably based on the surgeon's preference. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01825187.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedSurgical MeshHerniaInguinalMeshRepairRobotic

Identifiers

PMID32232645
OpenAlexW3013562199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.