Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27492376›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2016

[Prophylactic meshes in the abdominal wall. German version].

F E Muysoms, U A Dietz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Treatment of Incisional Hernia.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. The incidence of incisional hernia after aortic aneurysm is not higher than after benign colorectal interventions: A retrospective control-matched cohort study.Gefasschirurgie : Zeitschrift fur vaskulare und endovaskulare Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschen und der Osterreichischen Gesellschaft fur Gefasschirurgie unter Mitarbeit der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fur Gefasschirurgie · 2018
    Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

F E MuysomsDepartment for General, Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, AZ Maria Middelares, Dienst Algemene Heelkunde, Buitenring Sint-Denijs 30, 9000, Ghent, Belgien. filip.muysoms@azmmsj.be.
U A DietzKlinik und Poliklinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral-, Gefäß- und Kinderchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Oberdürrbacher Straße 6, 97080, Würzburg, Deutschland.
Universitätsklinikum Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a high incidence of incisional hernias in specific high-risk patient populations. For these patients, the prophylactic placement of mesh during closure of the abdominal wall incision has been investigated in several prospective studies.

objectiveThis article aims to summarize and synthetize the currently available evidence on prophylactic meshes in a narrative review. MATERIALS AND

methodsSystematic reviews were performed on the use of prophylactic meshes in different indications: midline laparotomies, stoma reversal wounds, and permanent stoma.

resultsHigh-quality data from randomized trials shows that prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh implantation is safe and effective, both in prevention of incisional hernias after midline laparotomies and during construction of an elective end colostomy. It should be considered in patients with a high risk for incisional hernia development, such as those receiving open abdominal aortic aneurysm, obesity, or colorectal cancer surgery. It is strongly recommended for construction of an elective permanent end colostomy. For midline laparotomies, both the retromuscular and onlay positions of a prophylactic mesh seem equally effective and safe. For parastomal hernia prevention, only the retromuscular prophylactic mesh and its use for end colostomies has been proven to be effective and safe. No data support the choice of a biological mesh or a synthetic absorbable mesh over a non-absorbable synthetic mesh, even in clean-contaminated surgical procedures. No data yet support the standard use of prophylactic mesh when closing the wound during closure of a temporary stoma.

conclusionProphylactic mesh implantation should be the standard of care during construction of an elective end colostomy and will become the standard of care for midline laparotomies in patients at high risk of incisional hernias.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshAortic Aneurysm, AbdominalBariatric SurgeryColorectal NeoplasmsColostomyEvidence-Based MedicineHumansIncisional HerniaLaparotomyProspective StudiesRisk FactorsColostomyIncisional herniaLaparotomyPreventionRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID27492376
OpenAlexW2531107146

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.