ReviewCureus2025
Mesh Repair Versus No-Mesh Repair for the Management of Acute and Elective Femoral Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare mesh repair versus no-mesh repair in the management of acute and elective femoral hernia repair. Different studies comparing mesh repair versus no-mesh repair in the management of femoral hernia were selected from medical electronic databases, and a meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines using statistical software RevMan version 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). Four retrospective studies and one prospective study were included, involving 537 patients, reporting the incidence of recurrence, surgical site infection, complications, and length of hospital stay. In the random effects model analysis, the length of hospital stay was lower in the mesh group but with significant statistical heterogeneity (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.34, 95% CI (-1.78, -1.11), Z = 0.46, P = 0.65). However, the variables of hernia recurrence, surgical site infection, and total complications were in favor of the mesh group, despite no statistically significant difference between both groups and without any statistical heterogeneity among the included studies: (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% CI (0.25, 1.02), Z = 1.91, P = 0.06); (RR 0.95, 95% CI (0.35, 2.57), Z = 0.10, P = 0.92); (RR 0.99, 95% CI (0.56, 1.74), Z = 0.05, P = 0.96). This systematic review indicates that mesh repair of the femoral hernia does not offer any advantage over no-mesh repair for recurrence. Due to the paucity of randomized clinical trials and significant heterogeneity among the compared variables, a major multicenter randomized clinical trial is needed to validate these findings.
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.