ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Does the Type of Permanent Mesh Matter for Inguinal Hernia Repair?
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInguinal hernia repair (IHR) is one of the most performed general surgery procedures in the United States, with more than 700,000 cases annually. There are limited data on the clinical outcomes based on the type of mesh (polyester or polypropylene) used in IHR. This study aims to bridge the knowledge gap on clinical outcomes for polyester and polypropylene mesh used for open and minimally invasive IHR. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective review of prospectively collected data from Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) of all adult patients (Age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) who underwent initial elective IHR (2014–2024) with or without mesh. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed comparing mesh-based repair with no-mesh repair as the control group.
resultsFrom 37,262 patients with initial elective IHR, 25,331 had polypropylene mesh, 8391 had polyester mesh, and 1770 had no-mesh repair. At 30-day follow-up, polypropylene and polyester had lower readmission (0.8% and 0.7% vs 1.3%;p < 0.05) but higher surgical site occurrences (SSO) (5.3% and 5.5% vs 2.2%;p < 0.05) compared to no-mesh repair. At 1-year follow-up, polypropylene and polyester had lower recurrence compared to no-mesh repair (6.4% and 6.6% vs 11%; p < 0.05). Additional analyses demonstrated similarly lower recurrence with polyester mesh. On logistic regression, polyester (OR 0.4,CI 0.28–0.69) and polypropylene (OR 0.4,CI 0.27–0.57) were protective against recurrence with similar SSO for polyester (OR 1.9,CI 1.01–3.51) and polypropylene (OR 1.9,CI 1.06–3.51) compared to no-mesh repair. Polyester (OR 0.4,CI 0.31–0.56) and polypropylene (OR 0.5,CI 0.39–0.65) had lower ≥6-month EuraHS-QoL pain score compared to no-mesh repair. No statistically significant difference for polyester versus polypropylene based on surgical approach.
conclusionThere was no difference in the 30-day SSO or 1-year hernia recurrence for polyester and polypropylene, irrespective of the surgical approach. Contrary to generalized belief, synthetic mesh-based posterior approach repair may be protective against chronic pain. This highlights the need to focus on surgeon preference and resource utilization that could impact practice guidelines.
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.