ArticleCureus2025
Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life Following Different Mesh and Fixation Methods in Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Registry-Based Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Case Report: Marfan syndrome complicated with obturator hernia.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of mesh in totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair remains a subject of debate, particularly regarding the optimal mesh shape. While anatomical and flat meshes are widely used, few studies have rigorously compared the impact of mesh shape while standardizing other surgical factors like fixation. Consequently, there is limited evidence to quantify the clinical and economic value of potential early recovery benefits. We aimed to determine if anatomical mesh shape provides superior early patient-reported outcomes compared to flat mesh when a standardized metallic fixation technique is used in both groups.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 80 patients undergoing elective TEP inguinal hernia repair. Patients were categorized to receive either a three-dimensional anatomical mesh (n=39) or a standard flat mesh (n=41), with both groups undergoing standardized metallic tack fixation. The primary outcomes were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessed at one and six months postoperatively. Instruments included the validated Thai version of the Carolinas Comfort Scale (TCCS) for hernia-specific symptoms and the EQ-5D-5L with a Thai value set for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Results: At the one-month follow-up, the anatomical mesh group demonstrated significantly better outcomes, with lower mean scores across all TCCS domains - Pain (7.77 ± 0.97 vs. 10.14 ± 0.96), Mesh Sensation (7.02 ± 0.92 vs. 9.17 ± 1.14), and Movement (6.95 ± 0.89 vs. 8.91 ± 1.08) - and a higher EQ-5D-5L utility score (0.819 ± 0.019 vs. 0.784 ± 0.016; p < 0.001 for all). By six months, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in either TCCS domains or EQ-5D-5L scores.
conclusionsWhen the fixation method is standardized, the anatomical shape of the mesh is associated with a significantly better quality of life and fewer symptoms during the first month of recovery, a benefit that is transient. This study quantifies the value of early postoperative recovery, providing crucial evidence for a trade-off analysis between the higher cost of anatomical mesh and its tangible, short-term clinical benefits. These findings are essential for facilitating informed, value-based decisions in surgical practice.
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.