SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
BIO-A versus Phasix biosynthetic mesh in minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough surgical repair is the standard treatment for symptomatic large hiatal hernias, recurrence rates remain high. Biosynthetic meshes have been designed to reinforce the crural closure while minimizing mesh-related complications. The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes between two widely adopted biosynthetic prostheses for hiatal hernia repair (BIO-A and Phasix).
methodsA systematic review of literature from January 1990 to July 2025 was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting outcomes of minimally invasive hiatal hernia repair (HHR) with either BIO-A or Phasix were included. Main outcomes were symptom improvement, GERD-HRQL scores, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and hernia recurrence. Secondary outcomes included mesh-related complications, overall and major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions and paired t-tests were performed.
resultsA total of 20 studies comprising 1,880 HHR procedures (BIO-A: n = 1,171 versus Phasix: n = 709) were analyzed. Mean follow-up was 26.5 and 29.6 months for BIO-A and Phasix studies, respectively. Both groups significantly improved symptoms (BIO-A: 65% to 16%, p = 0.003 vs. Phasix: 70% to 12%, p = 0.01), GERD-HRQL scores (BIO-A: 14.83 to 2.67 vs. Phasix: 18.40 to 4.40; p = 0.45), and reduced PPI use (BIO-A: 82% to 15% vs. Phasix: 84% to 10%; p = 0.75). Recurrence rates were similar between groups (BIO-A 9% vs. Phasix 7%, p = 0.63). Overall and major morbidity were also similar between groups (BIO-A: 10% and 0.7% vs. Phasix: 8% and 1.1%, respectively).
conclusionBoth prostheses were associated with favorable GERD-related outcomes, low surgical morbidity, and low recurrence rates after HHR. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, as between-group comparisons are exploratory and based on indirect evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42295448What 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.