Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32463163›Full record

Trial reportBJS open2020

Peritoneal bridging versus fascial closure in laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay ventral hernia mesh repair: a randomized clinical trial.

F Ali, G Wallin, B Fathalla, G Sandblom

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03344575 (Randomised Controlled Trial of Peritoneal Bridging Versus Defect Closure in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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.

NCT03344575 nacompletednot on this map

Randomised Controlled Trial of Peritoneal Bridging Versus Defect Closure in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair

TypeinterventionalSponsorKarolinska InstitutetRan2017 to 2019Enrolled50ConditionsHernia, Ventral, Laparoscopy, SeromaArmsConventional defect closure, Peritoneal bridging
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Peritoneal Bridging Versus Nonclosure in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

F AliDepartments of Surgery, Örebro University Hospital, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2090-4563
G WallinDepartments of Surgery, Örebro University Hospital, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Stockholm, Sweden.
B FathallaEmergency Department, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
G SandblomDepartment of Clinical Science and Education Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Örebro University · SEKarolinska Institutet · SEStockholm South General Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany patients develop seroma after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. It was hypothesized that leaving the hernial sac in situ may cause this complication.

methodsIn this patient- and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-design single-centre trial, patients undergoing laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh ventral hernia repair were randomized (1 : 1) to either conventional fascial closure or peritoneal bridging. The primary endpoint was the incidence of seroma 12 months after index surgery detected by CT, evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis.

resultsBetween September 2017 and May 2018, 62 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 25 were randomized to conventional closure and 25 to peritoneal bridging. At 3 months, one patient was lost to follow-up in the conventional and peritoneal bridging groups respectively. No seroma was detected at 6 or 12 months in either group. The prevalence of clinical seroma was four of 25 (16 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 30) per cent) versus none of 25 patients in the conventional fascial closure and peritoneal bridging groups respectively at 1 month after surgery (P = 0·110), and two of 24 (8 (0 to 19) per cent) versus none of 25 at 3 months (P = 0·235). There were no significant differences between the groups in other postoperative complications (one of 25 versus 0 of 25), rate of recurrent hernia within 1 year (none in either group) or postoperative pain.

conclusionConventional fascial closure and peritoneal bridging did not differ with regard to seroma formation after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03344575).

Indexed as

Surgical MeshWound Closure TechniquesAgedDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative PainRecurrenceReoperationSeromaSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

PMID32463163
PMCPMC7397363
OpenAlexW3029097727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.