I think that you meant “pure” tissue repairs, which really just means suture only repair. Another name for no-mesh repair.
Here is something that caught my eye in one of his publications, excerpted below. It will be interesting to see how deep he goes as his career progresses, in discerning what is real and what is not, in the various talking points about the superiority of mesh repairs. The Guidelines use the old studies as the basis for the claim that mesh is the obvious “first choice” over pure tissue repairs.
https://www.herniasurgeryjournal.org/article.asp?aulast=Pawlak&epage=77&issn=2589-8736&issue=3&spage=75&volume=2&year=2019
“Evidence itself is going through its own development. Many papers published in years past would not be accepted for publication today, because of their methodology failings, bias, lack of patient follow-up and the definitions of any complications reported not given. Indeed, one of the most cited papers relating to hernia surgery[13] would have unlikely been published in its current form today. Yet, the Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair is now in use worldwide and sometimes referred to as the “gold standard.” Many guidelines based the strength of their recommendations on the so-called hierarchy of clinical evidence, from systematic review of randomized controlled trials at the top to expert opinion at the bottom. However, this approach has been questioned and in many cases superseded by other ways of assessing medical knowledge which will be discussed further below.”