Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25663605›Full record

Trial reportHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2015

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: outcomes in primary versus incisional hernias: no effect of defect closure.

J R Lambrecht, A Vaktskjold, E Trondsen, O M Øyen, O Reiertsen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00455299 (Randomized Controlled National Multicenter Study for Evaluation of Two Different Ways of Fixation of Mesh-implants and Differences With or Without Approximation of Herniadefects at Laparoscopic Operation for Incisional and Ventral Hernia), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT00455299 phase3completednot on this map

Randomized Controlled National Multicenter Study for Evaluation of Two Different Ways of Fixation of Mesh-implants and Differences With or Without Approximation of Herniadefects at Laparoscopic Operation for Incisional and Ventral Hernia

TypeinterventionalSponsorOslo University HospitalRan2007 to 2013Enrolled156ConditionsVentral and Ventral Insicional HerniaArmsLaparoscopic ventral hernia repair
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Modified Chevrel Technique: A Lifesaver for Surgeons.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Robotic transabdominal retromuscular rectus diastasis (r-TARRD) repair: a new approach.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Primary non-complicated midline ventral hernia: is laparoscopic IPOM still a reasonable approach?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019
    Review
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J R LambrechtSurgical Department, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Kyrre Greppsgate 11, N-2819, Gjøvik, Norway, jan@lambrecht.no.
A Vaktskjold
E Trondsen
O M Øyen
O Reiertsen
Innlandet Hospital Trust · NOOslo University Hospital · NOAkershus University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSupposing divergent aetiology, we found it interesting to investigate outcomes between primary (PH) versus incisional (IH) hernias. In addition, we wanted to analyse the effect of defect closure and mesh fixation techniques.

methods37 patients with PH and 70 with IH were enrolled in a prospective cohort-study, treated with laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) and randomised to ± transfascial sutures. In addition, we analysed results from a retrospective study with 36 PH and 51 IH patients. Mean follow-up time was 38 months in the prospective study and 27 months in the retrospective study.

results35 % of PH's and 10 % of IH's were recurrences after previous suture repair. No late infections or mesh removals occurred. Recurrence rates in the prospective study were 0 vs. 4.3 % (p = 0.55) and the complication rates were 16 vs. 27 % (p = 0.24) in favour of the PH cohort. The IH group had a mesh protrusion rate of 13 vs. 5 % in the PH group (p = 0.32), and significantly (p < 0.01) larger hernias and adhesion score, longer operating time (100 vs. 79 min) and admission time (2.8 vs. 1.6 days). Closure of the hernia defect did not influence rate of seroma, pain at 2 months, protrusion or recurrence. An overall increased complication rate was seen after defect closure (OR 3.42; CI 1.25-9.33).

conclusionsWith PH, in comparison to IH treated with LVHR, no differences were observed regarding recurrence, protrusion or complication rates. Defect closure (raphe), when using absorbable suture, did not benefit long-term outcomes and caused a higher overall complication rate. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00455299).

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRecurrenceReoperationRetrospective StudiesSuture Techniques

Identifiers

PMID25663605
OpenAlexW2114529687

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.