Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2012
A randomised, multi-centre, prospective, observer and patient blind study to evaluate a non-absorbable polypropylene mesh vs. a partly absorbable mesh in incisional hernia repair.
Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00646334 (A Randomised, Multi-center, Prospective, Observer and Patient Blind Study to Evaluate AESCULAP Optilene® Mesh Elastic Versus Ethicon Ultrapro® Mesh in Incisional Hernia Repair), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomised, Multi-center, Prospective, Observer and Patient Blind Study to Evaluate AESCULAP Optilene® Mesh Elastic Versus Ethicon Ultrapro® Mesh in Incisional Hernia Repair
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Long-term patient-reported outcomes and quality of the evidence in ventral hernia mesh repair: a systematic review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Use of imaging for pre- and post-operative characterisation of ventral hernia: systematic review.The British journal of radiology · 2018Pooled it
- Management of patients with rectal prolapse: the 2017 Dutch guidelines.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Guideline
- A systematic methodological review of reported perioperative variables, postoperative outcomes and hernia recurrence from randomised controlled trials of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and standardised datasets are needed.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Robotic ventral hernia repair versus non-robotic techniques: a SAGES systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Beyond acronyms: a domain-based structural analysis of abdominal wall hernia repair techniques in the contemporary literature.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- PVDF versus polypropylene large pore mesh for open incisional hernia repair - a case control matched analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- How Reproducible Are Abdominal Wall Surgical Techniques? A Methodological Assessment of Technical Reporting in the Contemporary Literature.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
- What Is the Current Knowledge About Sublay/Retro-Rectus Repair of Incisional Hernias?Frontiers in surgery · 2018Article
- Nomenclature in Abdominal Wall Hernias: Is It Time for Consensus?World journal of surgery · 2017Article
- Outcomes of bridging versus mesh augmentation in laparoscopic repair of small and medium midline ventral hernias.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Orbital reconstruction with a partially absorbable mesh (monofilament polypropylene fibre and monofilament poliglecaprone-25): Our experience with 34 patients.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe implantation of a polymer mesh is considered as the standard treatment for incisional hernia. It leads to lower recurrence rates compared to suture techniques without mesh implantation; however, there are also some drawbacks to mesh repair. The operation is more complex and peri-operative infectious complications are increased. Yet it is not clear to what extent a mesh implantation influences quality of life or leads to chronic pain or discomfort. The influence of the material, textile structure and size of the mesh remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate if a non-absorbable, large pore-sized, lightweight polypropylene (PP) mesh leads to a better health outcome compared to a partly absorbable mesh. METHODS/
designIn this randomised, double-blinded study, 80 patients with incisional hernia after a median laparotomy received in sublay technique either a non-absorbable mesh (Optilene® Mesh Elastic) or a partly absorbable mesh (Ultrapro® Mesh). Primary endpoint was the physical health score from the SF-36 questionnaire 21 days post-operatively. Secondary variables were patients' daily activity score, pain score, wound assessment and post-surgical complications until 6 months post-operatively.
resultsSF-36, daily activity and pain scores were similar in both groups after 21 days and 6 months, respectively. No hernia recurrence was observed during the observation period. Post-operative complication rates also showed no difference between the groups.
conclusionThe implantation of a non-absorbable, large pore-sized, lightweight PP mesh for incisional hernia leads to similar patient-related outcome parameters, recurrence and complication rates as a partly absorbable mesh.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.