Trial reportHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing self-gripping and conventional mesh in laparoscopic totally extra peritoneal inguinal hernia repair.
Trial report in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the clinical outcomes of self-gripping mesh (SGM) in laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair.
methodsNinety-five patients were randomly divided into two groups based on the type of mesh used: tacker-fixed conventional mesh (n = 48) and SGM (n = 47). The Carolina Comfort Scale (CCS), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), postoperative complications, physical findings, and other clinical parameters were analyzed 1 week and 3 months postoperatively.
resultsThe two groups showed no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative discomfort at 1 week and 3 months. The reduction in discomfort was also similar between the two groups at both timepoints. The operating time, preoperative IPSS, and postoperative IPSS did not differ significantly at 1 week; however, the incidence of postoperative physical findings showed a significant difference at 1 week, with 12 cases in the conventional mesh group and 23 cases in the SGM group. The number of positive physical findings (abdominal wall induration and tenderness) at 1 week was significantly higher with SGM, but had converged by 3 months. Postoperative complications at 1 week occurred in six and two patients, respectively. No recurrence was observed in either group at 3 months.
conclusionThe SGM group had a higher incidence of postoperative physical findings at 1 week; however, by 3 months, these findings had mostly resolved, resulting in no significant long-term differences between the two groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41811387What 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.