ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2018
Comparison of biological and alloplastic meshes in ventral incisional hernia repair.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of controlled studies comparing biologic and synthetic unabsorbable mesh in contaminated fields.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair and Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Recommendations from Evidence-Based Medicine.World journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Ventral hernia repair in high-risk patients and contaminated fields using a single mesh: proportional meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of outcomes of ventral hernia repair using different meshes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Validation of a rat parastomal hernia model for evaluating mesh biocompatibility and repair outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Human Skeletal Muscle Myoblast Culture in Aligned Bacterial Nanocellulose and Commercial Matrices.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2024Article
- Risk factors of recurrence after incisional hernia preperitoneal repair: a long-term retrospective single-center cohort study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Do surgical drains reduce surgical site occurrence and infection after incisional hernia repair with sublay mesh? A non-randomised pilot study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
- Postoperative ileus after laparoscopic primary and incisional abdominal hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh (DynaMesh®-IPOM versus Parietex™ Composite): a single institution experience.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
- Evaluation of decellularization protocols for production of porcine small intestine submucosa for use in abdominal wall reconstruction.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Article
- Biological Scaffolds for Abdominal Wall Repair: Future in Clinical Application?Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of our retrospective analysis was to compare the results of incisional hernia repair by porcine small intestinal submucosa-derived (SIS) meshes with those obtained by alloplastic polypropylene-based (PP) meshes in comparable surgical indications by matched-pair design. We hypothesized that in incisional hernia, SIS mesh repair is associated with fewer recurrences and SSO than PP mesh repair in incisional hernias.
methodsTwenty-four matched pairs (SIS vs. PP mesh repair between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2013) were identified by matching criteria: gender, age, comorbidities, body mass index, EHS hernia classification, mesh implantation technique, CDC wound classification, and source of contamination/primary surgery leading to incisional hernia. Minimal follow-up time was 24 months. Means and standard deviations were compared by paired t test; categorial data were compared by McNemar's test. Poisson's distribution and negative binominal distribution were employed to detect significant correlation.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between both groups in the pre- and perioperative factors and the follow-up times. There were significantly more wound complications (19 vs. 12, p = 0.041), longer hospital stay (22.0 ± 6.3 vs. 12.0 ± 3.1 days, p = 0.010), and significantly more recurrent hernias (25 vs. 12.5%, p = 0.004) after SIS mesh repair. Both the Poisson's distribution and the negative binominal distribution unveiled significantly more complication points (3-6 vs. 1-2) per month after SIS mesh repair.
conclusionThere is no advantage of SIS meshes compared to PP meshes in incisional hernia repair with different degrees of wound contamination in this matched-pair analysis. Further prospective and randomized trials or at least registry studies such as the EHS register with standardized and defined conditions are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29214543What 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.