ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Outcomes from laparoscopic versus robotic mesh removal after inguinal hernia repair.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Macroscopic, radiologic, and microscopic analysis of explanted abdominal wall prosthesis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- The Challenges and Benefits of an Open Anterior Repair of Recurrent Inguinal Hernias: A Cohort Study.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic mesh removal in inguinal hernia surgery: evaluating patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- Inguinal hernia recurrence after laparoscopic mesh removal for chronic pain: a single-center experience with 11 years of practice.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- Patients With Systemic Reaction to Their Hernia Mesh: An Introduction to Mesh Implant Illness.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPreperitoneally placed mesh for inguinal hernia repair may require removal to address hernia recurrence, mesh reaction, meshoma, or other chronic pain. These are best approached either laparoscopically or robotically, but there is no consensus on which is the best approach for mesh removal nor are there any studies to evaluate and compare their outcomes.
methodsAll patients who underwent inguinal mesh removal via laparoscopic and robotic approaches from 2011 to 2020 were analyzed. Data regarding demographics, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were collected.
resultsOver 9 years, 62 patients underwent 24 laparoscopic and 50 robotic operations. Laparoscopic cases had a shorter operative time by a mean of 55 min (p = 0.02). There were no differences in intraoperative complications or postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Patients in both groups showed significant improvement after mesh removal (p = 0.02, p < 0.01) within 2 weeks postoperatively and at long-term follow up (p < 0.01, p < 0.01).
conclusionIt is our experience that both laparoscopic and robotic approaches are viable options for removal of retroperitoneally placed inguinal mesh. Operative time with the laparoscopic approach was significantly shorter than the robotic approach. Patients on average had significant reduction in their preoperative pain, regardless of the approach. Minimally invasive mesh removal is a technically challenging operation, with risk of vascular and nerve injuries regardless of the approach. These findings demonstrate that both modalities are safe and effective with experienced surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34981232What 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.