ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
Comparison of anatomical polyester mesh without fixation and conventional flat mesh with fixation in laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair for inguinal hernia.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLaparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair is a well-established technique. In Taiwan, the National Health Insurance (NHI) covers the fees of the procedure and conventional mesh (polypropylene mesh), whereas the anatomical polyester mesh (Parietex™) requires additional self-pay. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the conventional mesh with fixation versus the polyester mesh (without fixation) in laparoscopic TEP repair.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of male patients who underwent laparoscopic TEP repair between 2017 and 2021. Patients could choose between the conventional mesh with fixation (conventional mesh group) or self-paid Parietex™ mesh without fixation (anatomical polyester mesh group). The outcomes included operation (OP) time, prolonged length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications.
resultsA total of 74 patients with 123 hernias were included, of which 36 patients (67 hernias) underwent the anatomical mesh without fixation, while 38 patients (56 hernias) underwent the conventional mesh with fixation. The mean OP time was 102.6 ± 45.6 and 88.5 ± 42.0 min in the conventional and the anatomical polyester mesh group. After adjusting for body mass index, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and hernia type, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in OP time (p = 0.152) and the risk of acute pain (p = 0.337), chronic pain (p = 0.816), seroma (p = 0.941), hydrocele (p = 0.423), or hematoma (p = 0.347).
conclusionsThe conventional mesh demonstrates non-inferior outcomes compared to the anatomical polyester mesh. Given that the anatomical polyester mesh is not reimbursed by Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI), the use of the conventional mesh with fixation in TEP inguinal hernia repair may be a more cost-effective option in Taiwan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40155457What 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.