[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"hernia-inguinal\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:hernia-inguinal":57},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,7,0,[8,43,71,101,130,156,181],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":24,"briefSummary":26,"conditions":27,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":30,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":31,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":32,"startDateStruct":35,"completionDateStruct":37,"leadSponsor":39,"locationsCount":42},"100642490","effect-of-biologic-vs-synthetic-mesh-on-chronic-pain-after-laparoscopic-repair-of-contralateral-asymptomatic-hernia-in-patients-with-unilateral-symptomatic-inguinal-hernia-100642490",false,"NCT07649434","Effect of Biologic vs Synthetic Mesh on Chronic Pain After Laparoscopic Repair of Contralateral Asymptomatic Hernia in Patients With Unilateral Symptomatic Inguinal Hernia","Effect of Biologic vs Synthetic Mesh on Chronic Pain After Laparoscopic Repair of Contralateral Asymptomatic Hernia in Patients With Unilateral Symptomatic Inguinal Hernia: a Multicenter, Single-blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial","BiSAH","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age 18 to 80 years\n* Unilateral symptomatic inguinal hernia with contralateral asymptomatic hernia (diagnosed either preoperatively as a clinically asymptomatic hernia or intraoperatively as an occult hernia)\n* Planned for laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair and consent to simultaneous repair of the contralateral asymptomatic hernia\n* Written informed consent obtained\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Incarcerated or strangulated hernia requiring emergency surgery\n* Inability to receive porcine-derived devices (religious or ethnic reasons)\n* Participation in other interventional trials within the last 6 months\n* Acute systemic infection or skin disease near the surgical site\n* Chronic pain syndrome or long-term use of analgesic medications\n* Pregnancy, planned pregnancy, or breastfeeding\n* Any condition judged by the investigator as unsuitable for trial participation","ALL","18 Years","80 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},90,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"NA","Inguinal hernia is one of the most common conditions in general surgery. In clinical practice, surgeons frequently face a dilemma: during the evaluation of a patient with unilateral symptomatic inguinal hernia, a contralateral asymptomatic defect is discovered-either preoperatively on physical examination or intraoperatively during laparoscopy. The question then becomes: how should this incidental finding be managed? Epidemiological data show that the incidence of such contralateral asymptomatic hernias can be as high as 20%. The management strategy for these hernias has changed considerably over time. Although traditional \"watchful waiting\" was once widely adopted, long-term follow-up studies have demonstrated that approximately 70% of asymptomatic patients eventually require surgery due to symptom progression, and increasing age is associated with higher surgical risks. Consequently, with the widespread adoption of laparoscopic techniques, simultaneous repair of asymptomatic hernias during the initial surgery has become a common clinical choice.\n\nHowever, this decision raises a critical question: how can the surgeon balance the need to repair the existing anatomical defect against the risk of introducing new long-term complications from the intervention? This makes the choice of repair material particularly important. Currently, synthetic polypropylene meshes, with their proven effectiveness in reducing recurrence rates, are considered the gold standard for inguinal hernia repair. However, as permanent implants, they may be associated with long-term complications-chronic postoperative pain and foreign body sensation, which affect patients' long-term quality of life.\n\nBiologic meshes offer a different option. Derived from decellularized extracellular matrix, they are designed as temporary scaffolds that guide autologous tissue regeneration and ultimately degrade. Theoretically, this avoids a permanent foreign body reaction and may reduce long-term discomfort. Nevertheless, the clinical value of biologic meshes in inguinal hernia repair remains controversial. Some studies suggest that biologic meshes reduce chronic pain and improve quality of life; others show no difference in pain or recurrence rates compared with synthetic meshes. Meta-analyses have not demonstrated clear superiority of biologic over synthetic meshes in overall complications, recurrence, or chronic pain, and the heterogeneity among existing studies is high.\n\nThe BIOLAP randomized clinical trial, published in JAMA Surgery in 2025, provided high-level evidence for symptomatic bilateral hernias. It showed that in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, biologic mesh did not significantly reduce postoperative pain. Moreover, it was associated with a significantly higher 2-year recurrence rate (11.2% vs. 2.5%) and a higher seroma rate (33.4% vs. 21.6%). However, a key question remains: can these conclusions be directly extrapolated to the setting of contralateral asymptomatic hernia repair, where the therapeutic goal is to maximize long term comfort rather than to relieve existing symptoms? The investigators previously conducted an exploratory single-center randomized controlled study (n=52, BiSOH) that addressed this question preliminarily. In that trial, the biologic mesh group had significantly lower inguinal pain scores at both 1 month and 6 months, with pain decreasing over time in both groups. Quality of life measured by SF-36 was significantly better in the biologic mesh group at both follow-up time points, and the EQ-5D score was higher at 6 months. These findings suggest that biologic mesh may offer advantages in chronic pain control and quality of life for occult hernia repair, contrasting with the BIOLAP conclusions. However, the single center design and methodological limitations prevented confirmation of the primary endpoint difference, highlighting the need for a multicenter, high-quality clinical trial.\n\nCurrently, international guidelines lack high level evidence on the optimal mesh type for simultaneous repair of contralateral asymptomatic hernias. Therefore, this multicenter, randomized, single-blinded, parallel-controlled trial was designed to compare biologic versus synthetic meshes in this specific scenario. The hypothesis is that the use of a biologic mesh (porcine UBM\u002FSIS composite) reduces chronic pain on the asymptomatic side at 6 months without increasing recurrence, compared with a synthetic mesh (self-gripping polyester).\n\nThe biologic mesh is a porcine urinary bladder matrix and small intestinal submucosa composite (UBM\u002FSIS) manufactured by ZR Medtech (Suzhou, China). It is a non-cross-linked, acellular, collagenous matrix produced through patented decellularization and antigen removal processes. It has been used for various soft tissue defect repairs.",[28,29],"Hernia Inguinal","Biologic Mesh","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-14",{"date":33,"type":34},"2026-06-16","ACTUAL",{"date":36,"type":22},"2026-06",{"date":38,"type":22},"2028-01",{"name":40,"class":41},"Xiangya Hospital of Central South University","OTHER",1,{"id":44,"slug":45,"hasResults":11,"nctId":46,"briefTitle":47,"officialTitle":47,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":48,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":49,"enrollmentInfo":50,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":52,"briefSummary":53,"conditions":54,"keywords":58,"overallStatus":61,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":62,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":63,"startDateStruct":65,"completionDateStruct":66,"leadSponsor":68,"locationsCount":42},"100626942","comparison-of-postoperative-analgesic-effects-of-quadro-iliac-plane-block-and-transversus-abdominis-plane-blocks-in-inguinal-hernia-surgery-100626942","NCT07442188","Comparison of Postoperative Analgesic Effects of Quadro-iliac Plane Block and Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks in Inguinal Hernia Surgery","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged between 18 and 65 years\n* Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of I-III.\n* Patients with a body mass index (BMI) between 18 and 30 kg\u002Fm².\n* Patients scheduled to undergo unilateral inguinal hernia repair under general anesthesia in the operating room.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients younger than 18 years or older than 65 years.\n* Patients with an ASA physical status classification of IV or higher.\n* Patients with advanced comorbidities.\n* Patients with a history of bleeding diathesis.\n* Patients with infection at the site of the planned procedure.\n* Patients with a BMI below 18 kg\u002Fm² or above 30 kg\u002Fm².","65 Years",{"count":51,"type":22},60,[25],"Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide. Despite being classified as a minor surgical intervention, moderate to severe postoperative pain is reported in approximately 60% of patients. In a subset of these patients, acute postoperative pain may persist and evolve into chronic post-surgical inguinal pain, significantly affecting quality of life.\n\nIn recent years, beyond the use of systemic intravenous analgesics, ultrasound-guided fascial plane blocks have been increasingly incorporated into multimodal analgesia protocols with the aim of reducing postoperative opioid consumption and improving pain control. However, the current literature does not provide definitive evidence regarding the superiority of one block technique over another in this surgical population.\n\nThe primary objective of the present study is to compare the analgesic efficacy of the Quadro-iliac Plane Block (QIPB) and the transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) in patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair.",[55,56,57],"Peripheral Nerve Block","Pain Management","Hernia, Inguinal",[59,60],"Quadro Iliac Plane Block","Transversus Abdominis Plane Block","RECRUITING","2026-06-02",{"date":64,"type":34},"2026-06-03",{"date":62,"type":34},{"date":67,"type":22},"2026-10-19",{"name":69,"class":70},"Ankara Etlik City Hospital","OTHER_GOV",{"id":72,"slug":73,"hasResults":11,"nctId":74,"briefTitle":75,"officialTitle":76,"acronym":77,"eligibilityCriteria":78,"healthyVolunteers":79,"sex":17,"minAge":80,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":81,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":83,"briefSummary":84,"conditions":85,"keywords":87,"overallStatus":61,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":90,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":91,"startDateStruct":93,"completionDateStruct":95,"leadSponsor":97,"locationsCount":100},"100422368","ventral-or-inguinal-hernia-robotically-repaired-with-ovitex-mesh-100422368","NCT04779918","Ventral or Inguinal Hernia, Robotically Repaired With OviTex Mesh","A Prospective Study Evaluating the Clinical Outcomes of Ventral or Inguinal Hernias Treated Robotically With OviTex® Reinforced Tissue Matrix","BRAVOII","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Subject suffers from a ventral or inguinal hernia that requires surgical repair with the use of an implant to reinforce or replace weakened or missing tissue.\n2. The patient is scheduled for an elective robotic approach with the use of OviTex LPR, OviTex Core Permanent, OviTex 1S Permanent, or OviTex IHR.\n3. The size of the implant needed for repair is expected to be less than or equal to 15 x 25 cm for OviTex LPR and 25 x 40 cm for OviTex Core Permanent and OviTex 1S Permanent, with no size limitation for OviTex IHR.\n4. Subject meets CDC\u002FSSI Wound Classification Class I (Clean), Class II (Clean-Contaminated) or Class III (Contaminated) criteria.\n5. Subject is willing and able to sign an informed consent for the study and has signed the IRB approved Informed Consent form for this study.\n6. Subject is able to complete Quality of Life (QoL) and pain questionnaires.\n7. Subject is at least 21 years old.\n8. Subject is willing to comply and able to participate fully in, and for the full duration of, the study including follow-up requirements.\n\nExclusion Criteria at Baseline:\n\n1. Subject has a BMI of \\> 40\n2. Subject meets CDC\u002FSSI Wound Classification Class IV (Dirty-Infected) criteria\n3. Subject is female and is pregnant or plans to become pregnant during the course of the study.\n4. Subject has a life expectancy of \\\u003C 2 years making it unlikely that the subject will successfully achieve two-year follow-up.\n5. Subject has recent history of drug or alcohol abuse (in last 3 years).\n6. Subject has an allergy to ovine-derived products.\n7. Subject has participated in another clinical trial within the past 30 days or is currently involved in another clinical trial.\n8. Subject has a strangulated hernia.\n\nExclusion Criteria Intraoperative:\n\n1. Subject requires implant that cannot be introduced into the surgical site during the procedure via port or an existing incision.\n2. Subject unable to receive OviTex LPR, OviTex Core Permanent, OviTex 1S Permanent, or OviTex IHR at time of surgery.",true,"21 Years",{"count":82,"type":22},160,[25],"This study is designed to evaluate the post-operative complications and hernia recurrence following the use of OviTex in subjects with ventral or inguinal hernias. Up to 160 subjects will participate in the study from up to 20 investigator sites.",[86,57],"Hernia, Ventral",[88,89],"use of mesh","robotic hernia repair","2026-04-29",{"date":92,"type":34},"2026-05-05",{"date":94,"type":34},"2021-04-29",{"date":96,"type":22},"2029-12-30",{"name":98,"class":99},"Tela Bio Inc","INDUSTRY",10,{"id":102,"slug":103,"hasResults":11,"nctId":104,"briefTitle":105,"officialTitle":106,"acronym":107,"eligibilityCriteria":108,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":109,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":111,"phases":4,"briefSummary":112,"conditions":113,"keywords":115,"overallStatus":61,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":121,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":122,"startDateStruct":124,"completionDateStruct":126,"leadSponsor":128,"locationsCount":42},"100629354","pneumoperitoneum-duration-and-bicarbonate-changes-in-laparoscopic-hernia-surgery-100629354","NCT07473583","Pneumoperitoneum Duration and Bicarbonate Changes in Laparoscopic Hernia Surgery","Association Between Pneumoperitoneum Duration and Changes in Serum Bicarbonate Levels in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Prospective Observational Study","TAPPHCO3","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥18 years\n* Patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using the TAPP technique\n* Ability to provide informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Pregnancy\n* Severe cardiovascular disease\n* Renal insufficiency\n* Patients requiring additional intra-abdominal surgical procedures\n* Strangulated inguinal hernia requiring bowel resection",{"count":110,"type":22},100,"OBSERVATIONAL","The goal of this observational study is to learn how the length of pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery may affect changes in blood bicarbonate levels. Pneumoperitoneum is the use of carbon dioxide gas to create space inside the abdomen during laparoscopic surgery.\n\nThe main question this study aims to answer is whether a longer pneumoperitoneum time is associated with changes in blood bicarbonate levels after surgery.\n\nParticipants are adults undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair as part of their routine medical care. Researchers will measure blood gas values, including bicarbonate levels, before surgery and again two hours after surgery. The change in bicarbonate levels will be compared with the duration of pneumoperitoneum during the operation.\n\nThe results of this study may help improve the understanding of metabolic changes that occur during laparoscopic surgery.",[57,114],"Inguinal Hernia",[116,117,118,119,120],"Pneumoperitoneum","Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair","Serum Bicarbonate","Blood Gas Analysis","TAPP Technique","2026-03-12",{"date":123,"type":34},"2026-03-16",{"date":125,"type":22},"2026-03-10",{"date":127,"type":22},"2026-05",{"name":129,"class":41},"Haseki Training and Research Hospital",{"id":131,"slug":132,"hasResults":11,"nctId":133,"briefTitle":134,"officialTitle":135,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":136,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":137,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":138,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":111,"phases":4,"briefSummary":140,"conditions":141,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":61,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":146,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":147,"startDateStruct":149,"completionDateStruct":151,"leadSponsor":153,"locationsCount":155},"100583714","a-study-to-understand-the-utility-of-the-force-feedback-instruments-in-robotic-procedures-using-da-vinci-5-robot-100583714","NCT06879912","A Study to Understand the Utility of the Force Feedback Instruments in Robotic Procedures Using da Vinci 5 Robot","A Prospective, Post-Market Study to Evaluate the Clinical Utility of the Force Feedback Instruments in RAS Procedures Using the da Vinci 5 Surgical System","Pre-Operative Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age 22 years or older\n2. ASA ≤ 3\n3. The clinical decision has been made to perform multi-port robotic assisted surgery with da Vinci 5 with Force Feedback instruments for the study specified procedure as primary procedure prior to enrollment in the study\n4. Subject or a legally authorized representative is able to provide written informed consent using the study informed consent form prior to the study\n5. Subject is willing and able to comply with the study protocol requirements including follow up schedule\n\nPre-operative Exclusion Criteria:\n\n* Subject receiving an emergent procedure\n* Subject planned to undergo major concomitant surgery for the treatment of a different medical condition than was originally planned\n* Subject with previous ipsilateral surgery (open, endoscopic or robotic) with the same surgical indication\n* Subject with past or ongoing medical conditions (for example: inflammatory bowel disease) which, in the judgment of the Investigator, puts them at high risk for surgery and not appropriate for the study\n* Subject is pregnant or suspected to be pregnant or breastfeeding\n* Subject has any other condition or personal circumstance that, in the judgment of the Investigator, might interfere with the collection of complete quality data\n* Subject is currently participating in or has participated in a study of an investigational agent or a significant risk investigational device study within the past 6 months\n* Subject belongs to a vulnerable population.\n* Subject is contraindicated for anesthesia or surgery.\n* Subject has had previous neoadjuvant therapy, previous chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and\u002For radiation therapy for the treatment of the cancer to be resected within the past 6 months\n\nIntra-operative Exclusion Criteria\n\n* Subject with hemodynamic or respiratory instability, which precludes the Investigator from performing the RAS.\n* Subject in whom inadequate visualization makes a minimally invasive approach not feasible, as determined from the investigator assessment prior to docking the robot.\n* Subject with adhesions, scarring and disease status in the body which in the opinion of the investigator limits the ability to perform the minimally invasive procedure.","22 Years",{"count":139,"type":22},200,"The goal of this observational study is to understand the utility of force feedback instruments in surgeries that are done using the da Vinci 5 robot.",[57,86,142,143,144,145],"Colorectal","Thoracic","Gynecologic","Partial Nephrectomy","2026-02-23",{"date":148,"type":34},"2026-02-25",{"date":150,"type":34},"2025-05-22",{"date":152,"type":22},"2026-08",{"name":154,"class":99},"Intuitive Surgical",5,{"id":157,"slug":158,"hasResults":11,"nctId":159,"briefTitle":160,"officialTitle":161,"acronym":162,"eligibilityCriteria":163,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":164,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":111,"phases":4,"briefSummary":166,"conditions":167,"keywords":168,"overallStatus":30,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":172,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":173,"startDateStruct":175,"completionDateStruct":177,"leadSponsor":179,"locationsCount":4},"100615222","safety-and-efficacy-of-the-3dmax-mid-anatomical-mesh-bd-usa-in-laparoscopic-endoscopic-inguinal-hernia-repair---multicenter-prospective-observational-study-100615222","NCT07289802","Safety and Efficacy of the 3DMax™ MID Anatomical Mesh (BD, USA) in Laparoscopic-endoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair - Multicenter, Prospective Observational Study","Safety and Efficacy of the 3DMax MID Anatomical Mesh (BD, USA) in Laparoendoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Cohort Study","3DMS","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age 18 years or older\n* Primary unilateral or bilateral inguinal hernia\n* Scheduled for elective laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia repair (TAPP or TEP)\n* Considered suitable for general anesthesia and laparoendoscopic approach by the treating surgeon\n* 3DMax MID Anatomical Mesh planned for use as part of routine clinical care\n* Ability and willingness to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age below 18 years\n* Emergency surgery (e.g. incarcerated or strangulated hernia requiring urgent intervention)\n* Contaminated or potentially contaminated surgical field\n* Recurrent inguinal hernia in the same groin (previous repair with mesh or suture)\n* Concomitant procedures or clinical situations in which the surgeon decides that a different mesh concept or technique is required\n* Inability or unwillingness to comply with follow-up schedule (e.g. lack of telephone contact, severe cognitive impairment)",{"count":165,"type":22},300,"This is a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study evaluating the safety and efficacy of the 3DMax MID Anatomical Mesh (BD, USA) in laparoendoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Adult patients undergoing elective transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) or totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair will be enrolled and followed according to routine clinical practice.\n\nThe primary objective is to assess the inguinal hernia recurrence rate within 12 months after surgery. Secondary objectives include evaluation of postoperative pain, groin discomfort and foreign body sensation, as well as early and late postoperative complications.\n\nAll participating patients will receive the 3DMax MID Anatomical Mesh as part of standard care. No additional experimental procedures are planned. Clinical data will be collected at baseline and during predefined follow-up contacts (early postoperative period, 1 month, 3 months and 12 months) using standardized forms and patient interviews.",[57],[169,170,114,171],"Hernia","Mesh","Recurrence","2025-12-04",{"date":174,"type":34},"2025-12-17",{"date":176,"type":22},"2026-01-01",{"date":178,"type":22},"2027-04-01",{"name":180,"class":41},"Swissmed Hospital",{"id":182,"slug":183,"hasResults":11,"nctId":184,"briefTitle":185,"officialTitle":186,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":187,"healthyVolunteers":79,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":188,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":190,"briefSummary":191,"conditions":192,"keywords":194,"overallStatus":61,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":197,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":198,"startDateStruct":200,"completionDateStruct":202,"leadSponsor":204,"locationsCount":42},"100476492","mesh-removal-versus-no-mesh-removal-for-chronic-groin-pain-after-inguinal-hernia-repair-100476492","NCT05484635","Mesh Removal Versus No Mesh Removal for Chronic Groin Pain After Inguinal Hernia Repair","Mesh Removal Versus No Mesh Removal for Chronic Groin Pain After Minimally Invasive Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* \\> 18 years of age\n* CPIP lasting \\> 6 months after laparoscopic or robotic inguinal hernia repair with pre-peritoneal mesh\n* Must exhibit 1 or more of the following characteristics of nociceptive pain:\n\nHistory:\n\n* Pain while sitting in a chair for prolonged periods of time with relief when extending the hip or lying supine to straighten the leg\n* Severe pain when crossing the affected leg over the contralateral leg\n* \"Foreign body sensation\" or \"tightness\" in the groin\n\nExam:\n\n-Diffuse tenderness with deep palpation along the inguinal ligament (over the mesh)\n\nSomatosensory mapping:\n\n* Does not have a maximum trigger point for pain\n* Lacks characteristics of neuropathic pain (sharp, burning, shooting, paresthesias, allodynia, hyperalgesia, etc.)\n\n  * Moderate to severe pain \\[4-10\\] when moving from supine to standing on NRS\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* No characteristics of nociceptive groin pain\n* Zero or mild pain \\[0-3\\] when moving from supine to standing on NRS\n* Recurrent inguinal hernia detected on clinical exam\n* Large, femoral, direct or indirect inguinal hernia (F2-3, M2-3, L2-3) on diagnostic laparoscopy as defined by European Hernia Society (EHS) classification\n* Prior open (anterior) approach to inguinal hernia repair (i.e. Lichtenstein)\n* Prior mesh plugs or Prolene Hernia Systems\n* History of prostatectomy or vascular procedures in the pelvis or groin",{"count":189,"type":22},70,[25],"This study is evaluating the management of chronic post-operative inguinal hernia pain and the impact of hernia mesh removal after previous minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs.\n\nThe study aims are to evaluate the change in chronic (\\>6 months), nociceptive, postoperative inguinal pain after mesh removal compared to no mesh removal in patients who have previously undergone minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair with pre-peritoneal mesh.",[193,57],"Chronic Groin Pain",[195,57,196],"Chronic groin pain","Chronic pain groin","2025-10-02",{"date":199,"type":34},"2025-10-06",{"date":201,"type":34},"2022-07-25",{"date":203,"type":22},"2028-07-01",{"name":205,"class":41},"David Krpata"]