Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23784711›Full record

ReviewHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2013

Closure versus non-closure of hernia defect during laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with mesh.

M S Zeichen, H J Lujan, W N Mata, V H Maciel, D Lee, I Jorge, G Plasencia, E Gomez, A M Hernandez

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04393532 (Laparoscopic Primary Umbilical Hernia Repair With Routine Defect Closure Using Su2ura Approximation Device), which is not on this map. Cited by 35 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04393532 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Laparoscopic Primary Umbilical Hernia Repair With Routine Defect Closure Using Su2ura Approximation Device

TypeinterventionalSponsorAnchora MedicalRan2020 to 2024Enrolled29ConditionsPrimary Umbilical HerniaArmsSu2ura Approximation Device, Laparoscopic hernia repair surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Seroma prevention strategies in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a systematic review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Peritoneal Bridging Versus Nonclosure in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023
    Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

M S ZeichenMiami International Surgical Services at Jackson South Community Hospital, 9195 SW 72nd St # 230, Miami, FL, 33173, USA, mzeichen@hotmail.com.
H J Lujan
W N Mata
V H Maciel
D Lee
I Jorge
G Plasencia
E Gomez
A M Hernandez

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLaparoscopic ventral hernia repair with mesh versus laparoscopic ventral hernia defect closure with mesh reinforcement. The primary end-point was recurrence.

methodsRetrospective review of patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair for small- and medium-sized hernias between July 2000 and September 2011. These patients were divided: (1) repair with mesh alone (non-closure group) and (2) those with hernia defect closure and mesh reinforcement (closure group). The closure group was further divided by technique: percutaneous versus intracorporeal closure of the defect.

results128 patients were studied: 93 patients (72.66 %) in the non-closure group and 35 patients (27.34 %) in the closure group. Follow-up was available in 105 patients (82.03 %) at a mean of 797.2 days (range 7-3,286 days). In the non-closure group there were 14 patients (15.05 %) with postoperative complications and 8 patients (22.86 %) in the closure group, four of which were seromas. Fourteen patients (19.18 %) developed recurrent hernias in the non-closure group with an average time to presentation of 23.17 months (range 5.3-75.3). Two patients (6.25 %) developed recurrent hernias in the percutaneous group with an average time to presentation of 12.95 months (range 9.57-16.33). There have been no recurrences in patients whose defect was closed intracorporeally.

conclusionAlthough our study demonstrated a difference in recurrence rates of 19.18 % in the non-closure group versus 6.25 % in the closure group, the difference did not reach statistical significance. A larger series with longer follow-up may demonstrate clinical significance.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphyLaparoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsAbdominal Wound Closure TechniquesComparative Effectiveness ResearchFemaleHernia, VentralHumansMaleMiddle AgedSecondary PreventionSeverity of Illness IndexSurgical MeshTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID23784711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.