| Title |
Comparison of two different concepts of mesh and fixation technique in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-015-4329-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maciej Pawlak, Ralf-Dieter Hilgers, Kamil Bury, Andrzej Lehmann, Radosław Owczuk, Maciej Śmietański |
| Abstract |
Patients' need to improve outcomes and to reduce the number of complications triggers the development of new materials and surgery concepts. Currently, there are many implants and fixation systems dedicated for intraperitoneal onlay mesh procedure. The aim of this study was to compare two different mesh/fixation system concepts (PH: Physiomesh/Securestrap and VS: Ventralight ST/SorbaFix) for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with respect to pain. A single-center, prospective, randomized study was designed to include 50 patients per group with a planned interim analysis for safety after 25 patients. The endpoints were pain occurrences and intensity, which was measured with the visual analogue scale 7 days, 30 days, 3 months and 6 months after surgery. The safety parameters included the number of recurrences and postoperative complications. During the interim analysis, the study was stopped due to safety reasons. We observed five (20 %) recurrences in the PH group in first 6 months and none in the VS group. We observed a significantly higher pain rate in the PH group after 3 months (p < 0.0001) and no difference after 7 days (p = 0. 7019). The pain intensity decreased significantly over time (p < 0.0001) and was significantly higher in the PH group (p < 0.0001). Although this clinical trial was terminated prior to the preplanned recruitment goal, the obtained results from the enrolled patients indicate that the PH system associated with significantly greater hernia recurrences and postoperative pain compared with the VS system. This confirms the superiority of the elastic mesh concept, which may be a safer and more efficacious option for laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Peru | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 20% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 48% |
| Engineering | 5 | 9% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,890,543
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#181
of 6,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,384
of 263,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#3
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,076 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.