ReviewBJS open2018
Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure.
Review in BJS open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Biologic Mesh in Surgery: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis of Selected Outcomes in 51 Studies and 6079 Patients.World journal of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Innovation Reporting in Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty.Obesity surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Prophylactic biological mesh reinforcement versus standard closure of stoma site (ROCSS): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2020Trial
- Tissue-specific matrix-bound nanovesicles regulate the immunoregulatory progress of biological mesh-aided abdominal hernia repair.Bioactive materials · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial effect of biological surgical mesh added with vancomycin or silver nanoparticles for multidrug-resistant bacteria: experimental study in rats.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2026Article
- Case Report: Abdominal Wall Abscess as First Clinical Sign of Jejunal Perforation After Blunt Abdominal Trauma.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2024Article
- Abdominal wall hernia repair: from prosthetic meshes to smart materials.Materials today. Bio · 2023Review
- Development of a conceptual framework for reporting modifications in surgical innovation: scoping review.BJS open · 2023Article
- Surgical site infection in mesh repair for ventral hernia in contaminated field: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Review
- C-reactive protein is a predictive factor for complications after incisional hernia repair using a biological mesh.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Regulatory science for hernia mesh: Current status and future perspectives.Bioactive materials · 2021Review
- Implantation of biologic mesh in ventral hernia repair-does it make sense?Surgical endoscopy · 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
- Is water-soluble contrast enema examination for integrity of rectal anastomosis necessary prior to ileostomy reversal?JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2020Article
- Biocellulose for Incisional Hernia Repair-An Experimental Pilot Study.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- InvasiveCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
- Comparison of Hybrid Versus Synthetic Mesh in Robotic Rives-Stoppa Ventral Hernia Repair.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAchieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterize the stage of innovation for biological mesh devices used during complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence.
methodsA systematic review was performed of published and ongoing studies between January 2000 and September 2017. Eligible studies were those where a biological mesh was used to support fascial closure, either prophylactically after midline laparotomy, or for reinforcement after repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the GRADE criteria for study quality.
resultsThirty-five studies including 2681 patients were included. Four studies considered mesh prophylaxis, 23 considered hernia repair, and eight reported on both. There was one published randomized trial (IDEAL stage 3), none of which was of high quality; the others were non-randomized studies (IDEAL stage 2a). A detailed description of surgical technique was provided in most studies (27 of 35); however, no study reported outcomes according to the European Hernia Society consensus statement and only two described quality control of surgical technique during the study. From 21 ongoing randomized trials and observational studies, 11 considered repair of incisional hernia and 10 considered prophylaxis (seven in elective settings).
conclusionThe evidence base for biological mesh is limited, and better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although results of ongoing trials over the next decade will improve the evidence base, further study is required in the emergency and contaminated settings.
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.