ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024
Is mesh pore size associated with the outcome in laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repair? - a registry-based multivariable analysis.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mesh-fixation combinations and chronic postoperative inguinal pain after laparoscopic groin hernia repair: nationwide cohort study.BJS open · 2026Article
- Review
- Comparative efficacy and safety of surgical techniques for inguinal hernia repair in elderly patients: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Observational
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
introductionIn inguinal hernia repair, mesh weight and pore size are used to describe the mesh characteristics. One meta-analysis of laparo-endoscopic inguinal hernia repairs identified 12 prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2,909 patients who had all been treated with lightweight (≤ 50 g/m²) or heavyweight (> 70 g/m²) meshes. None of the 12 RCTs gave details of the pore size. There were more recurrences when using lightweight meshes, in particular in the case of medial defects without mesh fixation and/or large defects. In terms of pain, no significant differences were seen. This retrospective analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry now aims to analyze whether mesh pore size is related to the outcome in laparo-endoscopic inguinal repair. MATERIALS AND
methodsTo analyze the association between mesh pore size and the outcome in laparo-endoscopic inguinal repair, it was necessary to select meshes with comparable properties. Polyester meshes and PTFE meshes had to be excluded and polypropylene and polyvinylidene fluoride meshes (PVDF) were included. 83,768 included patients were retrospectively analyzed. The meshes analyzed were eight small-pore and 13 large-pore meshes. Using a binary logistic regression model, it is possible to simultaneously analyze several factors being potentially associated with the outcome.
resultsHigher BMI, lower weight meshes, higher ASA score and medial EHS classification were associated with a higher risk of recurrence. It was not possible to find any significant association between pore size and recurrences at one-year follow-up. This also applied for pain on exertion and pain requiring treatment.
conclusionNo association was identified between the pore size of the meshes used in laparo-endoscopic inguinal repair and the recurrence rate, pain on exertion rate or the rate of chronic pain requiring treatment at one-year follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39671013What 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.