ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2025
Perineal hernia repair: Multicentre comparative analysis of mesh-only versus mesh combined with tissue flap.
Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 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.
- Perineal hernia repair: Multicentre comparative analysis of mesh-only versus mesh combined with tissue flap.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimSurgical techniques for perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection have evolved over time. Synthetic mesh repair is currently the preferred technique, but recurrence rates are high. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of mesh-only repair with combined mesh and tissue flap repair.
methodBetween 2006 and 2022, patients who underwent perineal hernia repair with synthetic mesh or any mesh combined with tissue flap were retrospectively identified from three referral centres. The primary endpoint was recurrent perineal hernia.
resultsSeventy-two patients with primary perineal hernia were included, of whom 58 underwent mesh-only repair and 14 mesh with flap repair. Postoperative perineal wound complications occurred in 21% in both groups. Meshes were explanted solely within the mesh-only group (n = 3). There were no technical flap failures. Recurrence of perineal hernia occurred in 34% (n = 20/58) of mesh-only patients and in 14% (n = 2/14) of mesh with flap patients (p = 0.12), during a median follow up of 53 months [interquartile range (IQR) 20-81 months] and 24 months (IQR 14-58 months), respectively. Time to recurrent hernia was a median of 16 months (IQR 3-31 months). Crossover to mesh with flap after failed mesh-only repair was successful in 4/4 patients.
conclusionMesh combined with tissue flap repair of a perineal hernia seems more effective than synthetic mesh-only repair, based on an absolute 20% difference in recurrence rate. There was a lack of statistical power due to this being a low-volume type of surgery, even in this largest published series so far.
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.