Biologic vs Synthetic Inguinal Hernia Repair: 1-Year Results of a Randomized Double-Blinded Trial

Bochicchio, Grant V.; Jain, Ajay; McGonigal, Kelly; Turner, Douglas; Ilahi, Obeid; Reese, Stacey; Bochicchio, Kelly

doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.01.043

Cited by 28 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bochicchio et al . used Short‐Form 36 health survey version 2 to measure health‐related quality of life and found both groups demonstrated an improvement in their physical functioning and role, but only biologic mesh group had a significant improvement in bodily pain and other mental health indicators . Ansaloni et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Bochicchio et al . reported a higher recurrence rate in biologic mesh group at 1‐year follow‐up . They attributed the high recurrence rate to the inexperience of the surgeons and suggested that a biologic repair might require some added technical skill and experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23 Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had been carried out to compare the clinical outcomes of these two meshes in inguinal herniorrhaphy and found different results. [23][24][25][26][27] The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the clinical outcomes of biologic meshes versus synthetic meshes in open inguinal herniorrhaphy. and 'hernia'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: system review and meta‐analysis

Fang

Ren

Zhou

et al. 2015

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: system review and meta‐analysis

Fang

Ren

Zhou

et al. 2015

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This ‘chronic' time frame ranged between 1 and 36 months [63,64,65,66,67]. Second, some studies included the quantitative factor PI in their definition of CPIP, which was either expressed using descriptive terms [68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75], a visual analog scale (VAS) score, or a QOL score [31,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirty-two studies (40%) had a validated assessment of both PI and QOL [11,14,19,20,22,24,29,31,34,38,40,41,43,45,48,53,54,56,58,60,62,65,67,73,74,76,84,86,87,88,89,90]; in 33 (41%) and 3 (4%) of the studies, respectively, there was only a validated assessment of PI [8,10,13,17,21,23,25,26,28,30,33,35,36,42,44,47,49,50,52,59,61,63,69,71,77,78,80,81,82,83,85] or QOL [46,51,57]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uniformity of Chronic Pain Assessment after Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Critical Review of the Literature

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) is the most common long-term complication of inguinal hernia repair. As such procedures are routinely performed, CPIP can be considered a significant burden to global health care. Therefore, adequate preventative measures relevant to surgical practice are investigated. However, as no gold standard research approach is currently available, study and outcome measures differ between studies. The current review aims to provide a qualitative analysis of the literature to seek out if outcomes of CPIP are valid and comparable, facilitating recommendations on the best approach to preventing CPIP. Methods: A systematic review of recent studies investigating CPIP was performed, comprising studies published in 2007-2015. Study designs were analyzed regarding the CPIP definitions applied, the use of validated instruments, the availability of a baseline score, and the existence of a minimal follow-up of 12 months. Results: Eighty eligible studies were included. In 48 studies, 22 different definitions of CPIP were identified, of which the definition provided by the International Association for the Study of Pain was applied most often. Of the studies included, 53 (66%) used 33 different validated instruments to quantify CPIP. There were 32 studies (40%) that assessed both pain intensity (PI) and quality of life (QOL) with validated tools, 41% and 4% had a validated assessment of only PI or QOL, respectively, and 15% lacked a validated assessment. The visual analog scale and the Short Form 36 (SF36) were most commonly used for measuring PI (73%) and QOL (19%). Assessment of CPIP was unclear in 15% of the studies included. A baseline score was assessed in 45% of the studies, and 75% had a follow-up of at least 12 months. Conclusion: The current literature addressing CPIP after inguinal hernia repair has a variable degree of quality and lacks uniformity in outcome measures. Proper comparison of the study results to provide conclusive recommendations for preventive measures against CPIP therefore remains difficult. These findings reaffirm the need for a uniform and validated assessment with uniform reporting of outcomes to improve the burden that CPIP poses to a significant surgical patient population.

show abstract

Scientific surgery

2014

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biologic vs Synthetic Inguinal Hernia Repair: 1-Year Results of a Randomized Double-Blinded Trial

Cited by 28 publications

References 23 publications

Biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: system review and meta‐analysis

Biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: system review and meta‐analysis

Uniformity of Chronic Pain Assessment after Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Critical Review of the Literature

Scientific surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About