Trial reportJAMA surgery2025
Biological vs Synthetic Mesh in Laparoendoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The BIOLAP Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of biological versus synthetic meshes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Management of an Amyand's hernia complicated by necrotizing soft tissue infection: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Mesh-fixation combinations and chronic postoperative inguinal pain after laparoscopic groin hernia repair: nationwide cohort study.BJS open · 2026Article
- Review
- Hernia mesh repair in immunocompromised patients: a comprehensive review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Review
- Durability Wins-BIOLAP and the Case for Synthetic Mesh.JAMA surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Chronic postoperative pain and recurrence are relevant complications after inguinal hernia repair. Biological meshes have been proposed as a resorbable alternative to synthetic implants that may reduce postoperative pain. Objective: To compare postoperative pain and recurrence rates between biological and synthetic meshes in laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia repair using a self-controlled design. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Biological vs Synthetic Mesh in Laparoendoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair (BIOLAP) trial was a multicenter, randomized, self-controlled clinical trial conducted between August 2017 and February 2021 across 21 certified German hernia centers. A total of 491 adult patients with primary bilateral inguinal hernias underwent laparoendoscopic repair using 1 biological mesh and 1 synthetic mesh. Data analysis was performed from July 2023 to June 2024. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive a biological or synthetic mesh on the right side; the contralateral side received the alternate material. All patients underwent standardized laparoendoscopic repair (transabdominal preperitoneal plasty or total extraperitoneal plasty), and both patients and assessors were blinded to mesh assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were pain intensity at 6 months (measured using the visual analog scale) and hernia recurrence at 2 years. Secondary outcomes included seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection, and patient satisfaction. Results: Among 491 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [14.1] years; 457 [93.1%] male), there was no significant difference in pain at 6 months between biological and synthetic meshes (mean [SD] visual analog scale score at rest, 0.3 [0.9] for both; P = .76). However, the 2-year recurrence rate was significantly higher for biological meshes (53 recurrences [11.2%]) compared with synthetic meshes (12 recurrences [2.5%]) (P < .001). Seroma rates were also significantly higher with biological meshes than with synthetic meshes (164 patients [33.4%] vs 106 patients [21.6%], respectively; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Biological meshes did not reduce postoperative pain but were associated with significantly higher recurrence and seroma rates compared with synthetic meshes. These findings do not support the routine use of biological meshes in laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register Identifier: DRKS00010178.
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.