SynthesisPloS one2015
Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of Factors Affecting Midline Incisional Hernia Rates: Analysis of 14,618 Patients.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 183 papers, 20 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.
Rein4CeTo1: Incisional Hernia After Colorectal Cancer Surgery - a Randomized Controlled Multicentre Trial Comparing Small Stitch 4:1-technique With Respectively Without a Reinforced Tension-line Suture for Abdominal Closure
EVINOV: Prevention of Abdominal Incisional Hernia After Laparoscopic Digestive Surgery in Obese Patients (BMI>30kg/m2)
Prevention of Postoperative Hernias in Emergency Surgery
Influence of Suture Type on Emergency Midline Laparotomy Closure
Who cites it
183 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 366 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Outcomes of Reinforced Tension-Line Sutures Versus Standard Closure Techniques in Patients Undergoing Laparotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Retromuscular prophylactic mesh reinforcement after midline laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Incisional and parastomal hernias after harvesting of Vertical Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous (VRAM) flaps: incidence, treatment options and outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Is it safe not to fix the mesh in an open incisional hernia repair? Literature review.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Hybrid intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair for incisional hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Incisional hernias post cytoreductive surgery/peritonectomy and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Should routine surgical wound drainage after ventral hernia repair be avoided? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Prophylactic mesh reinforcement for midline incisional hernia prevention: systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies.The British journal of surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of coated meshes for intraperitoneal placement in animal studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled data analysis of primary ventral (PVH) and incisional hernia (IH) repair is no more acceptable: results of a systematic review and metanalysis of current literature.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019Pooled it
- A systematic methodological review of non-randomised interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Meta-analysis on Materials and Techniques for Laparotomy Closure: The MATCH Review.World journal of surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Comparing different modalities for the diagnosis of incisional hernia: a systematic review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018Pooled it
- The Treatment of Incisional Hernia.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing the use of prophylactic mesh to standard midline closure in the reduction of incisional herniae.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2017Pooled it
- European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2015Guideline
123 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of incisional hernias (IHs) following midline abdominal incisions is difficult to estimate. Furthermore recent analyses have reported inconsistent findings on the superiority of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures.
objectiveTo estimate the mean IH rate following midline laparotomy from the published literature, to identify variables that predict IH rates and to analyse whether the type of suture (absorbable versus non-absorbable) affects IH rates.
methodsWe undertook a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We sought randomised trials and observational studies including patients undergoing midline incisions with standard suture closure. Papers describing two or more arms suitable for inclusion had data abstracted independently for each arm.
resultsFifty-six papers, describing 83 separate groups comprising 14,618 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of IHs after midline incision was 12.8% (range: 0 to 35.6%) at a weighted mean of 23.7 months. The estimated risk of undergoing IH repair after midline laparotomy was 5.2%. Two meta-regression analyses (A and B) each identified seven characteristics associated with increased IH rate: one patient variable (higher age), two surgical variables (surgery for AAA and either surgery for obesity surgery (model A) or using an upper midline incision (model B)), two inclusion criteria (including patients with previous laparotomies and those with previous IHs), and two circumstantial variables (later year of publication and specifying an exact significance level). There was no significant difference in IH rate between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures either alone or in conjunction with either regression analysis.
conclusionsThe IH rate estimated by pooling the published literature is 12.8% after about two years. Seven factors account for the large variation in IH rates across groups. However there is no evidence that suture type has an intrinsic effect on IH rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.