ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021
A registry-based 2-year follow-up comparative study of two meshes used in transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) groin hernia repair.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison and Standardisation of Various Open Preperitoneal Techniques in Inguinal Hernia Surgery-Results of a Review and Consensus.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025Review
- Three-Arm Registry-Based Comparison of Trans-Inguinal-Pre-Peritoneal, Laparoscopic, and Lichtenstein Techniques for Scrotal Hernia Repair.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025Article
- Lichtenstein versus TIPP versus TAPP versus TEP for primary inguinal hernia, a matched propensity score study on the French Club Hernie Registry.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOnflex™ mesh has replaced Polysoft™ patch on the market, without being clinically evaluated thus far in the transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique.
methodsAll consecutive TIPP registered in our registry during the overlap period of availability of both meshes were included and studied with the chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) as primary endpoint, assessed with a verbal rating scale (VRS), and included in a patient-related outcome measurement (PROM) phone questionnaire.
resultsA total of 181 Onflex cases vs 182 Polysoft cases were studied with a 2-year follow-up rate of 92% vs 88%. The overall rate of pain or discomfort was not statistically different in the 2 studied subgroups (16.5% vs 17.6%; p = 0.71), while moderate or severe pain were significantly more frequent in the Polysoft subgroup (5.5% vs 11.6%; p = 0.01). These symptoms did not interfere with the patient daily life in 16% vs 16.5% of cases, and they were self-assessed as more bothersome than the hernia in only 0.5% vs 0.5% of cases, suggesting an overestimation of the pain by the VRS. Patients assessed the result of their hernia repair as excellent or good in 97.8% vs 96.7% and medium or bad in 2.2% vs 3.3% (p = 0.53). The cumulative recurrence rate was 0% vs 2.2%. Two reoperations (one for early and one for late recurrence) were reported in the Polysoft subgroup (1%), none related to the non-absorbable memory ring.
conclusionsThese results suggest that TIPP with Onflex provides results at least similar than those with Polysoft.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.