Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27287902›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017

Outcomes of bridging versus mesh augmentation in laparoscopic repair of small and medium midline ventral hernias.

Kryspin Mitura, Marzena Skolimowska-Rzewuska, Karolina Garnysz

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kryspin MituraDepartment of General Surgery, Siedlce Hospital, ul. Starowiejska 15, 08-110, Siedlce, Poland. chirurgia.siedlce@gmail.com.
Marzena Skolimowska-RzewuskaDepartment of General Surgery, Siedlce Hospital, ul. Starowiejska 15, 08-110, Siedlce, Poland.
Karolina GarnyszDepartment of General Surgery, Siedlce Hospital, ul. Starowiejska 15, 08-110, Siedlce, Poland.
University of Siedlce · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBridging of the hernia defect in laparoscopic repair (sIPOM) technique does not fully restore the abdominal wall function. Closure of hernia defect in IPOM-plus technique leads to the restoration of abdominal wall function and improved long-term treatment outcomes. Against the expectations, the studies confirm the formation of intraabdominal adhesions to the mesh. Regardless of the above, the search of the proper technique for mesh implantation and fixation is still ongoing. There have also been attempts to identify groups of patients who may still benefit from IPOM procedure. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with midline abdominal wall hernias up to 10 cm wide were enrolled in the study except for subxiphoid and suprapubic hernias. Between 2011 and 2014 we performed 82 hernia repairs using the laparoscopic technique with Physiomesh. Patients were divided into sIPOM and IPOM-plus groups. The study included 44M and 38F patients aged 27-84 years. After 12-months and again in August 2015 a survey was posted to all patients with questions regarding potential recurrence.

resultsAfter 12 months, eight patients (20 %) in sIPOM group reported subjectively perceived recurrence and none in IPOM-plus group (p = 0.002). Six patients (14.3 %) in sIPOM group reported suspected recurrence, as compared to three patients (7.1 %) in IPOM-plus group (p = 0.13). These patients were invited for a follow-up physical examination and sonography. Eventually, four cases of hernia recurrence were confirmed in sIPOM group (10 %) and none in IPOM-plus group (p = 0.018). Other patients presented with mesh bulging.

conclusionsLaparoscopic ventral hernia repair is generally safe and is associated with the low recurrence rate. Closure of fascial defects before mesh insertion offers better treatment outcomes. Non-closure of fascial defects with only bridging of the hernia defect (sIPOM) causes more frequent recurrence and bulging. As a result, patient satisfaction with treatment is lower, and they are concerned about hernia recurrence.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHernia, VentralHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionProspective StudiesRecurrenceBridgingHernia repairIPOMMeshPhysiomeshSuturing

Identifiers

PMID27287902
OpenAlexW2413137359

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.