SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Efficacy of biological versus synthetic meshes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, synthetic meshes are widely used but carry risks such as chronic pain and a foreign body sensation. Biological meshes, as emerging materials, have not yet reached a consensus regarding their clinical effectiveness compared to synthetic meshes.
methodsA systematic search of English and Chinese databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to January 25, 2026, comparing the clinical outcomes of biological and synthetic meshes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and the GRADE system were employed to evaluate the study quality.
resultsA total of 5 RCTs, involving 1,222 patients, were included. The meta-analysis showed that the biological mesh group had significantly higher pain scores on postoperative day 1 compared to the synthetic mesh group (MD = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.30–0.88, P < 0.0001), and on postoperative day 2 (MD = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.04–0.67, P = 0.03). The incidence of seroma was significantly higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (RR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.27–1.91, P < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of foreign body sensation (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.11–3.73, P = 0.62) and recurrence rate (RR = 1.96, 95% CI: 0.19–20.61, P = 0.57). GRADE evaluation showed that the evidence quality was moderate for postoperative pain scores on day 1 and seroma incidence, low for postoperative pain scores on day 2, and very low for both the incidence of foreign body sensation and recurrence rate.
conclusionIn laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, biological meshes were associated with higher postoperative pain scores and seroma incidence compared to synthetic meshes, with no significant difference in foreign body sensation. For recurrence rate, the pooled analysis was not significant; however, the largest trial favored synthetic mesh, and this outcome should be interpreted with caution.
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.