Trial reportJournal of medicine and life2023
Mesh alone versus combined darn and mesh in primary inguinal hernia repair in adults: a randomized control trial.
Trial report in Journal of medicine and life, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the availability of laparoscopy, open surgery remains the most common practice for primary inguinal hernia repair in general surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the combined mesh and darn (CMD) repair compared to mesh alone (MA) repair in treating adult inguinal hernias regarding recurrence and postoperative complications. We conducted a prospective randomized study, including 330 patients with primary inguinal hernias who underwent primary inguinal hernia repair at our facilities between February 2015 and January 2018. Time spent in the hospital, time to resume regular activities, postoperative sequelae, and recurrence rates were assessed. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups: CMD repair was performed on 165 patients (Group 1), and MA repair was done on 165 patients (Group 2). Patients were monitored for three years. The average operation time for MA was 62.2 minutes, compared to 72.9 minutes for CMD. The average time to return to normal work was comparable for both groups at around 3 weeks. In Group 2, 12 (7.1%) patients experienced postoperative complications and 3 (1.7%) recurrences. In the CMD repair group, 13 (8.1%) patients had postoperative complications, but no recurrences were observed. Hospitalization duration and postoperative pain were similar between the two groups. At the three-year follow-up, the CMD repair demonstrated a lower recurrence rate than MA, while both groups had similar postoperative complications, hospital stays, and return to normal activities. The operative time was slightly longer for CMD repair compared to MA repair.
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.