Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 29;22:118. doi: 10.1186/s12893-022-01509-y

Table 2.

Study characteristics, surgical details and postoperative outcomes of included conference abstracts

Study characteristics* Surgical details Postoperative outcomes*
Author Country Study period Sample size Mean age Male (%) Surgical technique Approach Mesh repair Mesh position Post- operative compl. rate Rec. rate Length of follow-up Type of follow-up Length of stay
Antor 2017 France 2006–2015 9 63 (59–83) NR NR Lap Yes Intra-peritoneal 0% 22% 27 m (7–106) Clinical + PC 6d (4–13)
Davis 2012 Canada 2005–2010 11 63.9 (47–79) 36% NR Lap Yes NR NR 27% 19.1 m (1–62) NR 6.3d (1–12)
Jaipuria 2020 India 2018–2019 6 67 67% MS RA Yes Intra-peritoneal NR 0% 10 m NR 2d
Shakir 2020 USA 2017–2019 7 71 29% Keyhole RA Yes Intra-peritoneal 29% 0% 90 d NR 4d
Von Bodman 2012 Germany 2009–2011 13 70 54% 3D funnel shape Open Yes Intra-peritoneal 31% 8% 23 m Clinical + US NR

*Numbers within brackets indicate ranges, unless otherwise stated

NR not reported, MS modified Sugarbaker, lap. laparoscopic, RA robotic-assisted, compl. complications, rec. recurrence, m months, PC phone call, US ultrasonography