ArticleSurgery today2014
Interposition of the hernia sac as a protective layer in repair of giant incisional hernia with polypropylene mesh.
Article in Surgery today, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Polypropylene-based composite mesh versus standard polypropylene mesh in the reconstruction of complicated large abdominal wall hernias: a prospective randomized study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2016Trial
- Behaviour at the peritoneal interface of next-generation prosthetic materials for hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Transabdominal midline reconstruction by minimally invasive surgery: technique and results.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRepair of giant incisional hernia is still associated with high postoperative morbidity and recurrence rates. We evaluated the effectiveness of placing the hernia sac between the viscera and the polypropylene mesh in the repair.
methodsThe subjects of this study were patients with an incisional hernia at least 15 cm in diameter, diagnosed between June 2004 and October 2010 and treated with on-lay polypropylene mesh at least 25 cm in length. We operated using a simplified method of placing the hernia sac between the viscera and the mesh, and fixing the mesh with interrupted trans-fascial U sutures. We evaluated the patient demographics and postoperative complications retrospectively.
resultsA total of 25 patients (mean age 57.1 ± 10 years) were included. The mean length of hospital stay was 1.8 ± 1.2 days. Seroma developed in four patients (16 %), but only two with cystic seroma required excision of the cyst wall with preservation of the mesh. Twenty-two patients (88 %) were followed up for a mean period of 42.6 ± 23 months. There was no incidence of chronic pain, hospitalization for intestinal obstruction, or enterocutaneous fistulization. There was only one recurrence (4.55 %).
conclusionThe hernia sac can be interposed in all patients undergoing giant incisional hernia repair if direct contact between the polypropylene mesh and intestine is unavoidable.
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.