Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31602587›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2019

Primary uncomplicated midline ventral hernias: factors that influence and guide the surgical approach.

H Alkhatib, A Fafaj, M Olson, T Stewart, D M Krpata

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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Tanaka score predicts surgical intensive care admission following abdominal wall reconstruction.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Transversus abdominis release (TAR): what are the real indications and where is the limit?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020
    Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

H AlkhatibCenter for Abdominal Core Health, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. alkhath2@ccf.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5384-2741
A FafajCenter for Abdominal Core Health, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
M OlsonDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Dr, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA.
T StewartDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Dr, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA.
D M KrpataCenter for Abdominal Core Health, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Cleveland Clinic · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsidering recently published high-level evidence on the management of primary midline ventral hernias, we set out to review current practices and reevaluate the literature surrounding this topic.

methodsThe Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) was used to abstract all uncomplicated primary midline ventral hernias. The primary outcomes of interest were surgical approaches, including the use of mesh, the type and position of mesh, and the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

resultsA total of 7030 met inclusion criteria; mean age of 52 ± 14, 71% male, with a median hernia width of 2 [1, 2]. A total 69% underwent mesh repair, while 31% underwent suture repair. The most commonly used mesh was permanent synthetic (98%), placed in either the intraperitoneal (46%) or preperitoneal (42%) spaces. The majority of repairs were performed through an open approach (72%). When mesh was used through an open approach (58%), the majority were patches (70%) placed in the preperitoneal space (50%). Through an MIS approach (95%), the majority were flat meshes (53%) placed in the intraperitoneal space (58%).

conclusionRecent high-level literature recommends the use of mesh repair (flat mesh) in all patients with hernia width ≥ 1 cm. This evidence is limited to the use of flat mesh through an open approach. While AHSQC surgeons do offer mesh repair in the majority of cases, this is most commonly using a mesh patch, and is selective towards larger hernias and obese patients. Further research is required to evaluate the safety of mesh patches, and a mesh repair should be offered to a young non-obese healthy patient, as they benefit similarly from the use of mesh.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphyPostoperative ComplicationsSurgical MeshFemaleHernia, VentralHumansMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality ImprovementReoperationSuture TechniquesUnited StatesEpigastricHerniaMeshPrimaryUmbilicalVentral

Identifiers

PMID31602587
OpenAlexW2979347505

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.