Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31422492›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2019

A systematic review on surgical treatment of primary epigastric hernias.

L Blonk, Y A Civil, R Kaufmann, J C F Ket, S van der Velde

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Ventral hernia repair in India: a Delphi consensus.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. What is the reality in epigastric hernia repair?-a trend analysis from the Herniamed Registry.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2021
    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

5 authors.

L BlonkDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Y A CivilDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R KaufmannDepartment of Surgery, Tergooi, Van Riebeeckweg 212, 1213 XZ, Hilversum, The Netherlands.
J C F KetMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S van der VeldeDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.vandervelde1@vumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0356-551X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn this systematic review, we evaluated all literature reporting on the surgical treatment of primary epigastric hernias, primarily focusing on studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair, and mesh reinforcement and suture repair.

methodsA literature search was conducted in Embase.com, PubMed and the Cochrane Library up to 24 April 2019. This review explicitly excluded literature on incisional hernias, ventral hernias not otherwise specified, and isolated (para)umbilical hernias. Primary outcome measures of interest were early and late postoperative complications.

resultsWe obtained a total of 8516 articles and after a strict selection only seven retrospective studies and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) on treatment of primary epigastric hernia were included. In one study (RCT) laparoscopic repair led to less postoperative pain (VAS) compared to open repair (3.6 versus 2.4, p < 0.001). No significant differences in early postoperative complications and recurrences were observed. Mesh reinforcement was associated with lower recurrence rates than suture repair in two studies (2.2% versus 5.6%, p  = 0.001 and 3.1% versus 14.7%, p = 0.0475). This result was not sustained in all studies. No differences were observed in early postoperative complications after mesh or suture repair.

conclusionsThis review demonstrated that studies investigating surgical treatment of primary epigastric hernias are scarce. The best available evidence suggests that mesh reinforcement in primary epigastric hernia repair possibily leads to less recurrences and that laparoscopic repair leads to less postoperative pain. Due to the high risk of selection bias of included studies and heterogenic study populations, no clear recommendations can be conducted. High-quality studies with well-defined patient groups and clear endpoints, primarily focusing on primary epigastric hernias, are mandatory.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphyPostoperative ComplicationsHernia, VentralHumansOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareSurgical MeshEpigastric herniaMeshPrimary herniaRecurrenceRepair

Identifiers

PMID31422492
PMCPMC6838029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.