New article questioning the validity of the Hernia Guidelines

[Good intentions]

Here is an abstract of a recent paper questioning the methods used to create The European Hernia Society Guidelines. I have posted in the past about how the effort to create the Guidelines was sponsored and supported by the major medical device makers, Bard and Johnson & Johnson.

It’s just an abstract but it’s good to see that there are people taking an objective look at how these “Guidelines” that the vast majority of surgeons use was created.

The paper was published in Hernia, so hopefully it reaches a wide audience. Surgeons should be questioning why they are being trained to use mesh, especially with all of the evidence being exposed showing the harm it causes.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10029-021-02423-7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat

[Good intentions]

Here is the conclusion, pasted below. PIH = primary inguinal hernias. NNT = number needed to treat, wiki link in the post above.

From wiki – “A higher NNT indicates that treatment is less effective.”

“Conclusion
The idea that mesh techniques reduce the recurrence rate in all PIHs is not supported by high level of evidence. The NNT for pure lateral hernias was very high and should be interpreted taking into account chronic pain rates and costs.”

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by Good intentions.

[Author]

Posts