Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26139480›Full record

GuidelineSurgical endoscopy2015

Laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair: updated Consensus Development Conference based guidelines [corrected].

Gianfranco Silecchia, Fabio Cesare Campanile, Luis Sanchez, Graziano Ceccarelli, Armando Antinori, Luca Ansaloni, Stefano Olmi, Giovanni Carlo Ferrari, Diego Cuccurullo, Paolo Baccari and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Gianfranco SilecchiaDivision of General Surgery and Bariatric Centre of Excellence, Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Faggiana 1668, 04100, Latina, LT, Italy.
Fabio Cesare Campanile
Luis Sanchez
Graziano Ceccarelli
Armando Antinori
Luca Ansaloni
Stefano Olmi
Giovanni Carlo Ferrari
Diego Cuccurullo
Paolo Baccari
Ferdinando Agresta
Nereo Vettoretto
Micaela Piccoli

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Executive board of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted an update of the first evidence-based Italian Consensus Conference Guidelines 2010 because a large amount of literature has been published in the last 4 years about the topics examined and new relevant issues.

methodsThe scientific committee selected the topics to be addressed: indications to surgical treatment including special conditions (obesity, cirrhosis, diastasis recti abdominis, acute presentation); safety and outcome of intraperitoneal meshes (synthetic and biologic); fixing devices (absorbable/non-absorbable); abdominal border and parastomal hernia; intraoperative and perioperative complications; and recurrent ventral/incisional hernia. All the recommendations are the result of a careful and complete literature review examined with autonomous judgment by the entire panel. The process was supervised by experts in methodology and epidemiology from the most qualified Italian institution. Two external reviewers were designed by the EAES and EHS to guarantee the most objective, transparent, and reliable work. The Oxford hierarchy (OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. "The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence") was used by the panel to grade clinical outcomes according to levels of evidence. The recommendations were based on the grading system suggested by the GRADE working group. RESULTS AND

conclusionsThe availability of recent level 1 evidence (a meta-analysis of 10 RCTs) allowed to recommend that not only laparoscopic repair is an acceptable alternative to the open repair, but also it is advantageous in terms of shorter hospital stay and wound infection rate. This conclusion appears to be extremely relevant in a clinical setting. Indications about specific conditions could also be issued: laparoscopy is recommended for the treatment of recurrent ventral hernias and obese patients, while it is a potential option for compensated cirrhotic and childbearing-age female patients. Many relevant and controversial topics were thoroughly examined by this consensus conference for the first time. Among them are the issue of safety of the intraperitoneal mesh placement, traditionally considered a major drawback of the laparoscopic technique, the role for the biologic meshes, and various aspects of the laparoscopic approach for particular locations of the defect such as the abdominal border or parastomal hernias.

Indexed as

Consensus Statements as TopicSurgical MeshHernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyHumansIncisional HerniaLaparoscopy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.