Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair in Men With Lightweight Meshes May Significantly Impair Sperm Motility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare quality of life and fertility aspects after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in men using a heavyweight or lightweight mesh. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The use of lightweight meshes in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair could have beneficial effects on quality of life and preservation of the spermatic structures due to a decreased foreign-body reaction. METHODS: A total of 59 male patients planned for primary, unilateral or bilateral inguinal hernia repair were randomized between a standard polypropylene (Marlex) or lightweight mesh (Vypro II, TiMesh). Main outcome measures were fertility aspects, assessed preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up by semen analysis and scrotal ultrasonography. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (SF-36 and McGill Pain Questionnaire) and recurrence up to 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: Patients operated on with a VyproII or TiMesh mesh exhibited a decreased sperm motility (vs. preoperatively) compared with Marlex patients, respectively -9.5% and -5.5% versus +2% (P = 0.013). When the results after uni- and bilateral hernia repair were analyzed separately, this difference only remained significant in the bilateral hernia subgroup: -10% for VyproII and -17% for TiMesh versus +1% for Marlex (P = 0.037). Other fertility parameters (sperm concentration, morphology, and alpha-glucosidase level) were unchanged. There were no differences at any study point between the 3 groups regarding quality of life. Only for resumption of sport activities was a small advantage noted for VyproII versus Marlex patients (P = 0.045). After 1 year, no recurrences were observed; 3 patients (6%) complained of chronic disabling pain. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the use of lightweight meshes for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in male patients negatively influences sperm motility, without any benefit on quality of life. These alterations might be important in a subgroup of young male patients operated on laparoscopically for a bilateral hernia. This study was registered in the clinicaltrials.gov database (ID number NCT00925067).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".