Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41060645›Full record

Trial reportJAMA surgery2025

Biological vs Synthetic Mesh in Laparoendoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The BIOLAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Claudia Simone Seefeldt, Judith Knievel, Muneer Deeb, Niels-Torsten Hoedt, Claudia Rudroff, Ralf Essen, Dirk Antoine, Gernot Maximilian Kaiser, Christoph Andreas Jacobi, Wilhelm Gross-Weege and 20 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Hernia mesh repair in immunocompromised patients: a comprehensive review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

30 authors.

Claudia Simone SeefeldtDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne Merheim Medical Center, Kliniken der Stadt Köln, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Judith KnievelDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne Merheim Medical Center, Kliniken der Stadt Köln, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Muneer DeebDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Ammerland Klinik, Westerstede, Germany.
Niels-Torsten HoedtDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Evangelisches Diakonissenkrankenhaus, Leipzig, Germany.
Claudia RudroffDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Functional Surgery of the Lower Gastrointestinal Tract, Evangelisches Klinikum Köln Weyertal, Cologne, Germany.
Ralf EssenDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, GFO Kliniken Rhein Berg, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany.
Dirk AntoineDepartment of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Klinikum Leverkusen, Leverkusen, Germany.
Gernot Maximilian KaiserDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, St Bernhard-Hospital Kamp-Lintfort, Kamp-Lintfort, Germany.
Christoph Andreas JacobiDepartment of Surgery, Dreifaltigkeits-Krankenhaus, Wesseling, Germany.
Wilhelm Gross-WeegeDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, St Elisabeth-Krankenhaus, Dorsten, Germany.
Wolfgang GänslerDepartment of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, Josephs-Hospital Warendorf, Warendorf, Germany.
Bernhard Johannes LammersDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Lukaskrankenhaus Neuss, Neuss, Germany.
Christoph BonkDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, St Barbara-Klinik Hamm-Heessen, Hamm, Germany.
Frauke HildebrandtDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, GRN Klinik Weinheim, Weinheim, Germany.
Thomas CarusDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Thuine, Thuine, Germany.
Moritz MeyerDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, St Marien-Krankenhaus Ahaus, Ahaus, Germany.
Mathias BebobruDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Helios Klinik Attendorn, Attendorn, Germany.
Alexander KrökelDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Eduardus-Krankenhaus Köln-Deutz, Cologne, Germany.
Jan DornbuschDepartment of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, KMG Klinikum Luckenwalde, Luckenwalde, Germany.
Mark SchneiderDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Nicola CerasaniDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Johanniter-Krankenhaus Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Bernd StechemesserHernia Center Cologne, PAN-Klinik, Cologne, Germany.
Rolf LeferingInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Dirk Rolf BulianDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne Merheim Medical Center, Kliniken der Stadt Köln, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Michael Alfred StröhleinDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne Merheim Medical Center, Kliniken der Stadt Köln, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Anna RiegerDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne Merheim Medical Center, Kliniken der Stadt Köln, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Jonas LangeDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne Merheim Medical Center, Kliniken der Stadt Köln, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Jürgen Stephan Meyer-ZillekensDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne Merheim Medical Center, Kliniken der Stadt Köln, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Claus Ferdinand EisenbergerDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne Merheim Medical Center, Kliniken der Stadt Köln, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Markus Maria HeissDepartment of Abdominal, Tumor, Transplant and Vascular Surgery, Cologne Merheim Medical Center, Kliniken der Stadt Köln, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Hernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyLaparoscopyPostoperative PainSurgical MeshAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID41060645
PMCPMC12509081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.