ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2020
Absorbable Polyglactin vs. Non-Cross-linked Porcine Biological Mesh for the Surgical Treatment of Infected Incisional Hernia.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Synthetic vs. biologic mesh for abdominal wall reconstruction in contaminated surgical fields. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Pooled 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
- Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of prophylactic resorbable biosynthetic mesh following midline laparotomy in clean/contemned field: preliminary results of a randomized double blind prospective trial.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Trial
- A Peritoneum-Inspired Biomimetic Asymmetric Patch for Functional Repair and Anti-Adhesion in Abdominal Wall Defects.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- The combination of the three modifications of the component separation technique in the management of complex subcostal abdominal wall hernia. Author's reply.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- The Effects of Tissue Healing Factors in Wound Repair Involving Absorbable Meshes: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- An Evaluation of the Evidence Guiding Adult Midline Ventral Hernia Repair.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- New Insights into the Application of 3D-Printing Technology in Hernia Repair.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2021Article
- Mesh Repair in Crohn's Disease: A Case-Matched Multicenter Study in 234 Patients.World journal of surgery · 2020Article
- Clinical applications of acellular dermal matrices: A review.Scars, burns & healingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of absorbable meshes during contaminated or infected incisional hernia (IH) repair is associated with high morbidity and recurrence rates. Biological meshes might be more appropriate but have been described in highly heterogeneous series. This study aimed at comparing the efficacy of absorbable vs. biological meshes for the treatment of contaminated or infected IH in a homogeneous series with a standardized technique.
methodsData of all patients operated on between 2008 and 2015 for contaminated or infected IH, using an absorbable (A) Vicryl® or a biological (B) Strattice® mesh, were reviewed. Patient characteristics, infectious complication rates, and recurrence-free outcome (RFO) were compared between the two groups. A propensity score methodology was applied to a Cox regression model to deal with unbalanced characteristics between groups.
resultsPatient demographics in A (n = 57) and in B (n = 24) were similar except that B patients had larger parietal defects (p < 0.001) and higher Center for Disease Control (CDC) wound class (p = 0.034). Patients in A had statistically significantly more postoperative early (61.4% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.03) and late (31.2% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.046) infectious complications. Six-, 12-, and 36-month RFO rates were 77%, 47%, and 24%, and 96%, 87%, and 82% in A and B, respectively, p < 0.001. Raw multivariable Cox regression analysis found that B (HR = 0.1, 95% CI [0.03-0.34], p < 0.001) was independently associated with prolonged RFO (HR = 0.091, 95% CI [0.045-0.180], p < 0.001).
conclusionBiological meshes seem to be superior to absorbable meshes in patients with contaminated or infected incisional hernia. These results need to be confirmed by prospective randomized trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30671806What 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.