ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024
A comparison of patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal wall repair with either synthetic or biosynthetic mesh: a pilot study.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parastomal hernia repair using retromuscular 3D funnel mesh: the "Sugar Funnel" technique.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Health-related quality of life outcomes of bioabsorbable Phasix Mesh versus permanent synthetic mesh following open ventral hernia repair: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Review
- Evaluation of medium to long-term patient satisfaction following open midline incisional hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRepair of midline ventral incisional hernias (VIHR) requires mesh reinforcement. Mesh types can be categorised into synthetic, biosynthetic, or biological. There is a lack of evidence to support one type of mesh over another. The aim of this pilot study was to compare mesh sensation in patients having undergone elective open repair with synthetic or biosynthetic mesh.
methodsFour years of prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed on 40 patients who had undergone VIHR, using either biosynthetic or synthetic mesh placed in the retromuscular plane. The decision on type of mesh used was governed by patient characteristics. Patients were invited to complete the Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) questionnaire, the higher the score indicating a poorer quality of life. The maximum length of follow-up was 36 months.
resultsTwenty patients received permanent synthetic and 20 biosynthetic mesh. There was no clinical evidence of hernia recurrence in either group in the short to medium term. Overall, 97% (39/40) patients reported an average of either no or mild symptoms (mean CCS score 17.9 of 115). Patients with a biosynthetic repair had a significant lower CCS at ≥ 18 months (p < 0.05).
conclusionAfter VIHR, patients have low CCS scores, indicating good quality of life outcomes, in the short to medium term irrespective of the mesh used. However, biosynthetic mesh had lower CCS scores in the medium term. This may help surgeons and patients make better informed decisions about which mesh to use in their individual circumstances.
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.