ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025
Standardization of laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair for incisional hernia: Impact on clinical outcome and quality-of-life (LIPOM trial, NCT 02089958).
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Current available outcome data following laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM) for incisional hernia (IH) are comparable to a limited extent only because of a huge number of variability particulary in surgical technique and use of medical devices. In this prospective observational multicenter cohort study we evaluate the impact of a consensus driven standard protocol for IPOM, that is mesh fixation with absorbable tacks in double crown technique enforced by additional non-absorbable transfascial sutures at the edges of the mesh along with the use of Physiomesh™, on clinical and patient reported outcome measures. Methods: A total of 102 consecutive patients were screened for eligibility between September 2013 and October 2014. 85 patients (IH: EHS W1: n = 39, W2: n = 46) were included into the study. Clinical examination and PROM for pain and quality of life measure (Carolina Comfort Scale, CCS) were performed at baseline, during hospital stay and at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year follow-up. Results: The follow-up rate was 87,1 % for the primary endpoint. The Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom-of-recurrence at 1 year was 95.9 % (95 %-CI: 87.9-98.7 %), the cumulative recurrence rate at 1 year was 4.1 % (95 %-CI: 0.9-11.7 %). There was no intraoperative complication. One seroma (type I; 1/84 (1,2 %), 95 %-CI: 0-7.1 %) was diagnosed during hospital stay. 12 seroma (n = 12/74 (16,2 %), 95 %-CI: 9.4-26.4 %; n = 10 type II and n = 2 type IV) were diagnosed during follow-up requiring surgical intervention in 1 patient (1,4 %, Clavien Dindo grade IIIb). Subcutaneous hematoma were found during follow-up in 8 patients (8/75 (10.7 %); 95 %-CI: 5.3-19.9) with need for surgical intervention in 2 patients (2,7 %, Clavien Dindo grade IIIb). There were 3 superficial surgical site infections (3/74 (4,1 %); 95 %-CI: 0.9-11.7 %, Clavien-Dindo grade I) without need for reoperation. Patient reported pain as measured by numeric rating scale at baseline was 1.36 ± 1.53 and 0.35 ± 1.04 at 1 year follow-up. CCS total scores indicated a good outcome with a decrease to 2.80 ± 6.47 (Min: 0, Q1: 0, Median: 0; Q3: 3.0; Max: 38.0) at 1 year follow-up. Subscore sensation of mesh decreased from 4.01 ± 6.76 (min: 0, Q1: 0, Median: 0; Q3: 5.0; Max: 28.0) at 6 weeks to 1.67 ± 3.99 (Min: 0, Q1: 0, Median: 0; Q3: 1.0; Max: 21.0) after 6 months and 0.90 ± 2.69 (Min: 0, Q1: 0, Median: 0; Q3: 0; Max: 14.0) after 1 year follow-up. Subscores pain and movement limitation both decreased during follow-up and were significantly reduced at 1 year compared to preoperative assessment (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study showed favourable clinical and patient reported outcomes and a low rate of recurrences at 1 year follow-up after IPOM for elective IH applying a standardized surgical technique including the use of Physiomesh™. In view of the data leading to the market withdrawal of the Physiomesh™, one might conclude, that the described standard may have contributed to a compensation of the suspected delay in tissue integration of the Physiomesh™ resulting in a more proper mesh fixation compared to absorbable tack fixation with/without absorbable TFS. This may lead to the general appraisal, that the fixation technique has to be adapted to the individual characteristics of type of mesh and fixation devices and the planned anatomic landing zone of the mesh.
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.