Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32377129›Full record

ArticleSisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni2020

The Effects of Operation Technique on Recurrence of Incisional Hernia Repair.

Turan Acar, Nihan Acar, Yunus Sür, Erdinç Kamer, Kemal Atahan, Hüdai Genç, Mehmet Hacıyanlı

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
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

7 authors.

Turan AcarDepartment of General Surgery, Izmir Katip Celebi University Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Nihan AcarDepartment of General Surgery, Izmir Katip Celebi University Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Yunus SürDepartment of General Surgery, Izmir Katip Celebi University Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Erdinç KamerDepartment of General Surgery, Izmir Katip Celebi University Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Kemal AtahanDepartment of General Surgery, Izmir Katip Celebi University Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Hüdai GençDepartment of General Surgery, Izmir Katip Celebi University Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Mehmet HacıyanlıDepartment of General Surgery, Izmir Katip Celebi University Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe selection of incision type, closure type of incision and the suture material are some of the important factors to prevent hernia development. We should aim to perform the best procedure with the best technique to reduce the risk of recurrence. Surgical options include primary repair and open or laparoscopic repair with mesh. Mesh repairs can be performed as onlay, sublay or inlay according to the area where the mesh is to be laid. In this retrospective study, our main goal was to compare the recurrence rates in patients who underwent incisional hernia repair with onlay and inlay mesh techniques.

methodsThis retrospective study included 185 patients who underwent surgery due to incisional hernia in our clinic between January 2012 and October 2017. Patients were divided into two groups according to the technique as Group 1 with onlay mesh repair and Group 2 with inlay mesh repair. The same type of mesh (prolen) was applied to all patients.

resultsThere were 121 patients in Group 1 and 64 patients in Group 2. According to data we obtained, 64.3% of the patients were women and the mean age of all patients was 58.4±16.4 years. Postoperative complications (such as seroma-hematoma, surgical site infection, mesh rejection, postoperative ileus) developed in 29.2% (n=54) of the patients. The length of hospital stay was 4.2±3 days in Group 1 and 5.6±5 days in Group 2. The mean follow-up period was 48.6 months (24-93 months), with the recurrence rates of 5.8% (n=7) in Group 1 and 10.9% (n=7) in Group 2, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups concerning comorbidity, postoperative complications, the length of hospitalization stay and recurrence.

conclusionWe believe that the onlay technique will be more appropriate than the inlay technique when only prolen mesh is preferred because the recurrence rates are higher in the inlay technique.

Indexed as

Incisional herniainlayonlayrecurrencesurgical technique

Identifiers

PMID32377129
PMCPMC7192261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.