Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28864937›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2017

Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing the use of prophylactic mesh to standard midline closure in the reduction of incisional herniae.

R Payne, J Aldwinckle, S Ward

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04700956 (Does Prophylactic Mesh Placement in Emergency Midline Laparotomy Reduce the Incidence of Incisional Hernia? A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 13 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.

NCT04700956 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Does Prophylactic Mesh Placement in Emergency Midline Laparotomy Reduce the Incidence of Incisional Hernia? A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorKonya City HospitalRan2020 to 2022Enrolled104ConditionsIncisional HerniaArmsprimary abdominal closure, abdominal closure with prophylactic mesh
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Incisional hernia prediction using machine learning models.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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.

R PayneUniversity Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK. Robert.payne@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9749-5358
J AldwinckleJames Paget University Hospital, Gorleston, UK.
S WardUniversity Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose Incisional hernia (IH) is common complication following laparotomy. Research suggests that the use of a prophylactic mesh can reduce the rate of IH. We performed an updated meta-analysis to better understand the evidence regarding prevention of IH using prophylactic mesh.

methodsPubMed, clinictrials.gov.uk, and the Cochrane database were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing closure of the abdomen after laparotomy using a prophylactic mesh with suture closure. A meta-analysis was then performed. The primary outcome was the occurrence of IH.

resultsEight studies were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis with a total of 727 patients. PRIMARY OUTCOME: There was a significant reduction in the occurrence of IH in the mesh group vs. the suture repair group, OR 0.14 (95% CI 0.07-0.27). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: There was a significant increase in the number of seromas in the mesh group vs. the suture repair group, OR 1.73 (95% CI 1.04-2.87). There was also a significant increase in operative time in the mesh group vs. the suture repair group SMD 0.24 (95% CI 0.00-0.48).

conclusionsThis meta-analysis found a reduction in the occurrence of IH after a laparotomy when a prophylactic mesh is used versus a suture repair. The majority of patients included in the studies were deemed to be at high risk of IH. There appears to be sufficient evidence to recommend the use of a prophylactic mesh during laparotomy in high-risk patients.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshWound Closure TechniquesHumansIncisional HerniaLaparotomySuturesIncisional herniaLaparotomyMeshProphylactic

Identifiers

PMID28864937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.