ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Analysis of Hiatal Hernia Repair Techniques: A Meta-Analysis Review Study on Biological Mesh, Phasix™ Mesh, and Primary Repair.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of mesh reinforced cruroplasty with Phasix™ ST vs. Bio-AHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the Role of PhasixST™ Mesh in Laparoscopic Repair of Large Hiatal Hernias: Surgical Technique and Comprehensive Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
Mesh usage in hiatal hernia repair is debated regarding recurrence rates and complications. This study aims to compare the efficacy of Phasix™ ST mesh, biological mesh, and primary repair in terms of recurrence rates, reoperation rates, and mesh-related complications. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to search literature in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 2011 to November 2023. Included studies focused on participants aged 18+ undergoing hiatal hernia repair with specific mesh types or repair methods. Data on recurrence rates, reoperation rates, and mesh-related complications were analyzed by BMI and follow-up time subgroups. Statistical analysis used the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. Bias in studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane risk of bias tools for non-randomized and randomized trials. Twenty-two studies involving 2,008 patients were included. A double-arm meta-analysis comparing biological mesh and suture cruroplasty found no significant difference in recurrence or reoperation rates. The randomized trial showed no significant difference in recurrence (OR 2.02; 95% CI 0.71-5.76) or reoperation (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.17-2.96). Non-randomized studies also showed no significant difference in recurrence (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.03-3.06) or reoperation (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.05-2.37). In single-arm meta-analyses, Phasix™ ST mesh had the lowest recurrence rate, followed by biological mesh and suture cruroplasty. No reoperations were reported with Phasix™ ST mesh. Postoperative dysphagia was lowest with Phasix™ ST mesh. In conclusion, Phasix™ ST mesh showed the lowest recurrence, reoperation rates, and dysphagia compared to biological mesh and primary repair, making it a preferred option.
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.