Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30968286›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2019

Short-term comparison between preperitoneal and intraperitoneal onlay mesh placement in robotic ventral hernia repair.

F Gokcal, S Morrison, O Y Kudsi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Robotic repair of off-midline abdominal wall hernias: a single institution consecutive case series.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Robotic thoracoabdominal hernia repair: a novel approach.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. [Current robotic ventral hernia surgery exemplified by 50 consecutive patients].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2022
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

F GokcalGood Samaritan Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, One Pear Street, Brockton, MA, 02301, USA.
S MorrisonGood Samaritan Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, One Pear Street, Brockton, MA, 02301, USA.
O Y KudsiGood Samaritan Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, One Pear Street, Brockton, MA, 02301, USA. omar.kudsi@tufts.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6723-0909
Tufts University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to compare perioperative results of robotic IPOM (r-IPOM) and robotic TAPP (r-TAPP) in ventral hernia repair, and to identify risk factors associated with postoperative complications.

methodsAfter obtaining balanced groups with propensity score matching, the comparative analysis was performed in terms of perioperative and early outcomes. All variables were also examined in a subset analysis in patients with and without complications. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors associated with the development of complications.

resultsOf 305 r-IPOM and r-TAPP procedures, 104 patients were assigned to each group after propensity score matching. There was no difference in operative times between two groups. Although postoperative complications were largely minor (Clavien-Dindo grade-I and II), the rate of complications was higher in the r-IPOM group within the first 3-weeks (33.3% in r-IPOM vs. 20% in r-TAPP, p = 0.039). At the 3-month visit, outcomes between groups were not different (p = 0.413). Emergency department re-visits within 30-days and surgical site events were also higher in the IPOM group (p = 0.028, p = 0.042, respectively). In regression analysis, the development of complications was associated with incisional hernias (p = 0.040), intraperitoneal mesh position (p = 0.046) and longer procedure duration (p = 0.049).

conclusionOur data suggest r-IPOM may be associated with increased complication rates in the immediate postoperative period when compared to r-TAPP. However, at 3 months, outcomes are comparable. More investigation is needed in this area, specifically with regards to long-term follow-up and multicenter data, to determine the true value of extra-peritoneal mesh placement.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphyPostoperative ComplicationsAdultComparative Effectiveness ResearchFemaleHumansIncisional HerniaMaleMiddle AgedOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePeritoneumRisk FactorsRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgical MeshTime FactorsUnited StatesIncisional herniaIntraperitoneal onlay meshIPOMPropensity score matchingRobotic ventral hernia repairTAPPTransabdominal preperitoneal

Identifiers

PMID30968286
OpenAlexW2939010432

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.