SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2014
A systematic review of synthetic and biologic materials for abdominal wall reinforcement in contaminated fields.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04455724 (Negative Pressure Incisional Wound Therapy for High-risk Ventral Hernia Repair), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 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.
Negative Pressure Incisional Wound Therapy for High-risk Ventral Hernia Repair: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Synthetic vs. biologic mesh for abdominal wall reconstruction in contaminated surgical fields. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Ventral hernia repair with synthetic mesh in a contaminated field: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Concomitant Ventral Hernia Repair and Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review.Obesity surgery · 2018Pooled it
- The early outcomes of complex abdominal wall reconstruction with polyvinylidene (PVDF) mesh in the setting of active infection: a prospective series.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Trial
- Diastasis recti abdominis: A comprehensive review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Review
- The Effects of Pectin-Honey Hydrogel in a Contaminated Chronic Hernia Model in Rats.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Biologic Versus Synthetic Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair: Participant-Level Analysis of Two Randomized Controlled Trials at Twenty-Four to Thirty-Six Months.Surgical infections · 2023Article
- An Evaluation of the Evidence Guiding Adult Midline Ventral Hernia Repair.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- Surgical site infection in mesh repair for ventral hernia in contaminated field: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Review
- C-reactive protein is a predictive factor for complications after incisional hernia repair using a biological mesh.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Implantation of biologic mesh in ventral hernia repair-does it make sense?Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Safety and Long-Term Outcomes After Hernia Repairs with Synthetic Mesh in Contaminated Fields.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020Article
- Single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a novel antibiotic-impregnated biologic porcine submucosa tissue matrix.BMC surgery · 2020Observational
- Absorbable Polyglactin vs. Non-Cross-linked Porcine Biological Mesh for the Surgical Treatment of Infected Incisional Hernia.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020Article
- Use of posterior component separation and transversus abdominis release in trauma and emergency general surgery patients: a case report and review of the literature.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2019Review
- What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018Review
- Evaluation of a Novel Hybrid Viable Bioprosthetic Mesh in a Model of Mesh Infection.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2017Article
- Biologic mesh for repair of ventral hernias in contaminated fields: long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- 2017 update of the WSES guidelines for emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidelines recommend the use of bioprosthetics for abdominal wall reinforcement in contaminated fields, but the evidence supporting the use of biologic over synthetic non-absorbable prosthetics for this indication is poor. Therefore, the objective was to perform a systematic review of outcomes after synthetic non-absorbable and biologic prosthetics for ventral hernia repair or prophylaxis in contaminated fields.
methodsThe systematic literature search identified all articles published up to 2013 that reported outcomes after abdominal wall reinforcement using synthetic non-absorbable or biologic prosthetics in contaminated fields. Studies were included if they included at least 10 cases (excluding inguinal and parastomal hernias). Quality assessment was performed using the MINORS instrument. The main outcomes measures were the incidence of wound infection and hernia at follow-up. Weighted pooled proportions were calculated using a random effects model.
resultsA total of 32 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for synthesis. Mean sample size was 41.4 (range 10-190), and duration of follow-up was >1 year in 72 % of studies. Overall quality was low (mean 6.2, range 1-12). Pooled wound infection rates were 31.6 % (95 % CI 14.5-48.7) with biologic and 6.4 % (95 % CI 3.4-9.4) with synthetic non-absorbable prosthetics in clean-contaminated cases, with similar hernia rates. In contaminated and/or dirty fields, wound infection rates were similar, but pooled hernia rates were 27.2 % (95 % CI 9.5-44.9) with biologic and 3.2 % (95 % CI 0.0-11.0) with synthetic non-absorbable. Other outcomes were comparable.
conclusionsThe available evidence is limited, but does not support the superiority of biologic over synthetic non-absorbable prosthetics in contaminated fields.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24619334What 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.