The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight composite mesh with polyester or polypropylene mesh for incisional hernia repair.
Abstract
Background: Polymer mesh has been used to repair incisional hernias with lower recurrence rates than suture repair. A new generation of mesh has been developed with reduced polypropylene mass and increased pore size. The aim of this study was to compare standard mesh with new lightweight mesh in patients undergoing incisional hernia repair. Methods: Patients were randomized to receive lightweight composite mesh, or standard polyester or polypropylene mesh. Outcomes were evaluated at 21 days, 4, 12 and 24 months from patient responses to the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and daily activity questionnaires. Complications and recurrence rates were recorded. Results: A total of 165 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (83 lightweight mesh, 82 standard mesh). Postoperative complication rates were similar. The overall hernia recurrence rate was 17 per cent with the lightweight mesh versus 7 per cent with the standard mesh (P = 0·052). There were no differences in SF-36 physical function scores or daily activities between 21 days and 24 months after surgery. Conclusion: The use of the lightweight composite mesh for incisional hernia repair had similar outcomes to polypropylene or polyester mesh with the exception of a non-significant trend towards increased hernia recurrence. The latter may be related to technical factors with regard to the specific placement and fixation requirements of lightweight composite mesh.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The aforementioned randomized clinical trial by Conze et al 30 that compared lightweight and heavy-weight mesh also identified a 10% difference in 2-year recurrence (17% vs 7%, P = .052)that favored heavy-weight mesh.”
From Effect of Hernia Mesh Weights on Postoperative Patient-Related and Clinical Outcomes After Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [30]
In the citing paper
“Although lightweight mesh has demonstrated limitations in regard to durability for such repairs”
From Effect of Hernia Mesh Weights on Postoperative Patient-Related and Clinical Outcomes After Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [30]
In the citing paper
“Conze et al 30 compared lightweight and heavy-weight mesh in 165 open sublay repairs and likewise were unable to demonstrate a difference in any SF-36 scores or daily activities between 21 days and 24 months.”
From Effect of Hernia Mesh Weights on Postoperative Patient-Related and Clinical Outcomes After Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [30]
In the citing paper
“Finally, 2 randomized clinical trials 29,30 comparing mesh weight in open ventral hernia repair likewise found no patient-perceived benefits to the lightweight material.”
From Effect of Hernia Mesh Weights on Postoperative Patient-Related and Clinical Outcomes After Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [30]
In the citing paper
“reports of lightweight mesh fracture are mounting for both polypropylene and monofilament polyester.30,33,34”
From Effect of Hernia Mesh Weights on Postoperative Patient-Related and Clinical Outcomes After Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Mudge, 1985, Incisional hernia: a 10 year prospective study of incidence and attitudes, Br J Surg, 72, 70, 10.1002/bjs.1800720127 · DOI
- van 't Riet, 2002, Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions, Br J Surg, 89, 1350, 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02258.x · DOI
- Manninen, 1991, Results of incisional hernia repair. A retrospective study of 172 unselected hernioplasties, Eur J Surg, 157, 29
- Kingsnorth, 2003, Hernias: inguinal and incisional, Lancet, 362, 1561, 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14746-0 · DOI
- Cassar, 2002, Surgical treatment of incisional hernia, Br J Surg, 89, 534, 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02083.x · DOI
- Luijendijk, 2000, A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia, N Engl J Med, 343, 392, 10.1056/NEJM200008103430603 · DOI · Paper page
- Korenkov, 2002, Randomized clinical trial of suture repair, polypropylene mesh or autodermal hernioplasty for incisional hernia, Br J Surg, 89, 50, 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01974.x · DOI
- Leber, 1998, Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias, Arch Surg, 133, 378, 10.1001/archsurg.133.4.378 · DOI · Paper page
- Welty, 2001, Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes, Hernia, 5, 142, 10.1007/s100290100017 · DOI
- Klinge, 1996, Pathophysiology of the abdominal wall, Chirurg, 67, 229
- Klosterhalfen, 1998, Functional and morphological evaluation of different polypropylene-mesh modifications for abdominal wall repair, Biomaterials, 19, 2235, 10.1016/S0142-9612(98)00115-X · DOI · Paper page
- Klinge, 1998, Modified mesh for hernia repair that is adapted to the physiology of the abdominal wall, Eur J Surg, 164, 951, 10.1080/110241598750005138 · DOI
- Rosch, 2003, Vypro II mesh in hernia repair: impact of polyglactin on long-term incorporation in rats, Eur Surg Res, 35, 445, 10.1159/000072230 · DOI
- Rives, 1973, Large incisional hernias. The importance of flail abdomen and of subsequent respiratory disorders, Chirurgie, 99, 547
- Post, 2004, Randomized clinical trial of lightweight composite mesh for Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair, Br J Surg, 91, 44, 10.1002/bjs.4387 · DOI
- O'Dwyer, 2005, Randomized clinical trial assessing impact of a lightweight or heavyweight mesh on chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair, Br J Surg, 92, 166, 10.1002/bjs.4833 · DOI
- Schachtrupp, 2003, Individual inflammatory response of human blood monocytes to mesh biomaterials, Br J Surg, 90, 114, 10.1002/bjs.4023 · DOI
- Bencini, 2003, Laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias: prospective evaluation, Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 13, 16, 10.1097/00129689-200302000-00004 · DOI
- Schippers, 2001, Results of open preperitoneal net plasty in incisional hernia, Viszeralchirurgie, 36, 152, 10.1055/s-2001-15011 · DOI
- Martin-Duce, 2001, Modifications to Rives technique for midline incisional hernia repair, Hernia, 5, 70, 10.1007/s100290100010 · DOI
- Klinge, 2005, Incisional hernia: open techniques, World J Surg, 29, 1066, 10.1007/s00268-005-7970-2 · DOI
- Conze, 2004, Technical consideration for subxiphoidal incisional hernia repair, Hernia, 9, 84, 10.1007/s10029-004-0239-0 · DOI
- Conze, 2004, Pitfalls in retromuscular mesh repair for incisional hernia: the importance of the ‘fatty triangle’, Hernia, 8, 255, 10.1007/s10029-004-0235-4 · DOI
Cited by
Krpata, D. M., Petro, C. C., Prabhu, A. S., Tastaldi, L., Zolin, S., Fafaj, A., Rosenblatt, S., Poulose, B. K., Pierce, R. A., Warren, J. A., et al. (2021) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.4309 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Conze, J., Kingsnorth, A. N., Flament, J. B., Simmermacher, R., Arlt, G., Langer, C., Schippers, E., Hartley, M., & Schumpelick, V
- Affiliations
- Department of Surgery, University Clinic Aachen, Aachen, Germany
- Department of Surgery, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK
- Department of Surgery, Hopital Robert Bebre, Reims, France
- University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Park-Klinik Weissensee, Berlin, Germany
- Department of General Surgery, Georg-August-University-Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
- Department of Surgery, Juliusspital, Würzburg, Germany
- Department of Surgery, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-11-24
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1488-1493
- ISSN
- 0007-1323
- 1365-2168
- Cited by
- 132
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Funders
- Ethicon GmbH
- Ethicon Ltd
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
