Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24165473›Full record

Trial reportTrials2013

Laparoscopic bridging vs. anatomic open reconstruction for midline abdominal hernia mesh repair [LABOR]: single-blinded, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial on long-term functional results.

Cesare Stabilini, Umberto Bracale, Giusto Pignata, Marco Frascio, Marco Casaccia, Paolo Pelosi, Alessio Signori, Tommaso Testa, Gian Marco Rosa, Nicola Morelli and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. A scoping review of abdominal wall functional assessment in patients with hernias.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Article
  6. ENGINE-An EHS Project for Future Guidelines.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

19 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Cesare StabiliniDepartment of Surgical Sciences (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. cesarestabil@hotmail.com.
Umberto Bracale
Giusto Pignata
Marco Frascio
Marco Casaccia
Paolo Pelosi
Alessio Signori
Tommaso Testa
Gian Marco Rosa
Nicola Morelli
Rosario Fornaro
Denise Palombo
Serena Perotti
Maria Santina Bruno
Mikaela Imperatore
Carolina Righetti
Stefano Pezzato
Fabrizio Lazzara
Ezio Gianetta
University of Genoa · ITAzienda Sanitaria Locale Alessandria · ITIRCCS San Camillo Hospital · ITUniversity of Naples Federico II · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRe-approximation of the rectal muscles along the midline is recommended by some groups as a rule for incisional and ventral hernia repairs. The introduction of laparoscopic repair has generated a debate because it is not aimed at restoring abdominal wall integrity but instead aims just to bridge the defect. Whether restoration of the abdominal integrity has a real impact on patient mobility is questionable, and the available literature provides no definitive answer. The present study aims to compare the functional results of laparoscopic bridging with those of re-approximation of the rectal muscle in the midline as a mesh repair for ventral and incisional abdominal defect through an "open" access. We hypothesized that, for the type of defect suitable for a laparoscopic bridging, the effect of an anatomical reconstruction is near negligible, thus not a fixed rule. METHODS AND

designThe LABOR trial is a multicenter, prospective, two-arm, single-blinded, randomized trial. Patients of more than 60 years of age with a defect of less than 10 cm at its greatest diameter will be randomly submitted to open Rives or laparoscopic defect repair. All the participating patients will have a preoperative evaluation of their abdominal wall strength and mobility along with volumetry, respiratory function test, intraabdominal pressure and quality of life assessment.The primary outcome will be the difference in abdominal wall strength as measured by a double leg-lowering test performed at 12 months postoperatively. The secondary outcomes will be the rate of recurrence and changes in baseline abdominal mobility, respiratory function tests, intraabdominal pressure, CT volumetry and quality of life at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. DISCUSSION: The study will help to define the most suitable treatment for small-medium incisional and primary hernias in patients older than 60 years. Given a similar mid-term recurrence rate in both groups, if the trial shows no differences among treatments (acceptance of the null-hypothesis), then the choice of whether to submit a patient to one intervention will be made on the basis of cost and the surgeon's experience.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN93729016.

Indexed as

Research DesignSurgical MeshClinical ProtocolsEquipment DesignHernia, AbdominalHerniorrhaphyHumansItalyLaparoscopyMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRecurrenceSingle-Blind MethodTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID24165473
PMCPMC4231609
OpenAlexW2141705332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.