Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26029697›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2015

Is pooled data analysis of ventral and incisional hernia repair acceptable?

Ferdinand Köckerling, Christine Schug-Paß, Daniela Adolf, Wolfgang Reinpold, Bernd Stechemesser

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 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. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. The economic burden of incisional ventral hernia repair: a multicentric cost analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2016
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. ENGINE-An EHS Project for Future Guidelines.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  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 1 institution in 1 country.

Ferdinand KöckerlingDepartment of Surgery, Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Vivantes Hospital Berlin, Academic Teaching Hospital of Charité Medical School , Berlin , Germany.
Christine Schug-PaßDepartment of Surgery, Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Vivantes Hospital Berlin, Academic Teaching Hospital of Charité Medical School , Berlin , Germany.
Daniela AdolfStatConsult GmbH , Magdeburg , Germany.
Wolfgang ReinpoldDepartment of Surgery, Wilhelmsburger Hospital Groß-Sand, Academic Teaching Hospital of University Hamburg , Hamburg , Germany.
Bernd StechemesserHernia Center Cologne , Cologne , Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn meta-analyses and systematic reviews comparing laparoscopic with open repair of ventral hernias, data on umbilical, epigastric, and incisional hernias are pooled. Based on data from the Herniamed Hernia Registry, we aimed to investigate whether the differences in the therapy and treatment results justified such an approach.

methodsBetween 1st September 2009 and 31st August 2013, 31,664 patients with a ventral hernia were enrolled in the Herniamed Hernia Registry. The implicated hernias included 16,206 umbilical hernias, 3,757 epigastric hernias, and 11,701 incisional hernias. Data on the surgical techniques, postoperative complication rates, and 1-year follow-up results were subjected to statistical analysis to identify any significant differences between the various hernia types.

resultsThe laparoscopic IPOM technique was used significantly more often for incisional hernia than for epigastric hernia, 31.3 vs. 24.0%, respectively, and was used for 12.9% of umbilical hernias (p < 0.0001). Likewise, the open technique with suturing of defect was used significantly more often for umbilical hernia than for epigastric hernia, 56.1 vs. 35.4%, respectively, and was used for 12.5% of incisional hernias (p < 0.0001). The postoperative complication rates of 3.2% for umbilical hernia and 3.5% for epigastric hernia were significantly lower than for incisional hernia, at 9.2% (p < 0.0001). That was also true for the reoperation rates due to postoperative complications, of 1.0 vs. 1.2 vs. 4.2% (p < 0.0001). The 1-year follow-up revealed significantly higher recurrence rates as well as rates of chronic pain needing treatment of 6.3 and 7.9%, respectively, for incisional hernia, compared with 4.1 and 4.3%, respectively, for epigastric hernia, and 2 and 1.9%, respectively, for umbilical hernia (p < 0.0001).

conclusionSince significant differences were identified in the therapy and treatment results between umbilical hernia, epigastric hernia, and incisional hernia, scientific studies should be conducted comparing the various surgical techniques only for a single hernia type.

Indexed as

complicationsepigastric herniaincisional herniaprimary ventral herniarecurrenceumbilical herniaventral hernia

Identifiers

PMID26029697
PMCPMC4428214
OpenAlexW1524309346

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.