Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32951104›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2021

Assessment of potential influencing factors on the outcome in small (< 2 cm) umbilical hernia repair: a registry-based multivariable analysis of 31,965 patients.

F Köckerling, W Brunner, F Mayer, R Fortelny, D Adolf, H Niebuhr, R Lorenz, W Reinpold, K Zarras, D Weyhe

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Laparoscopic versus open repair for umbilical hernia: outcomes and complications.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Perioperative outcome in groin hernia repair: what are the most important influencing factors?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. [Ventral hernias part 1 : Operative treatment techniques].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

F Köckerling *Department of Surgery and Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital of Charité Medical School, Vivantes Hospital, Neue Bergstrasse 6, 13585, Berlin, Germany. ferdinand.koeckerling@vivantes.de.
W Brunner *Department of General, Visceral, Endocrine and Transplant Surgery, Rorschacher Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Str. 95, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
F MayerDepartment of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Müllner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
R FortelnyDepartment of General Surgery, Hospital Ottakring, Montleartstrasse 37, 1160, Vienna, Austria.
D AdolfStatConsult GmbH, Halberstädter Strasse 40 a, 39112, Magdeburg, Germany.
H NiebuhrHansechirurgie, Niebuhr Marleschki & Partner, Alte Holstenstr. 16, 21031, Hamburg, Germany.
R LorenzHernia Center 3 + CHIRURGEN, Klosterstrasse 34/35, 13581, Berlin, Germany.
W ReinpoldWilhelmsburger Hospital Gross-Sand, Gross-Sand 3, 21107, Hamburg, Germany.
K ZarrasMarien Hospital Düsseldorf, Rochusstrasse 2, 40479, Düsseldorf, Germany.
D WeyheDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Pius Hospital Oldenburg, University Hospital of Visceral Surgery, Georgstraße 12, 26121, Oldenburg, Germany.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEInfoConsult (Germany) · DEKantonsspital St. Gallen · CHMarien Hospital Düsseldorf · DEParacelsus Medical University · ATPius Hospital Oldenburg · DESigmund Freud University Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHow best to treat a small (< 2 cm) umbilical hernia continues to be the subject of controversial debate. The recently published guidelines for treatment of umbilical hernias from the European Hernia Society and Americas Hernia Society recommend open mesh repair for defects ≥ 1 cm. Since the quality of evidence is limited for hernias with defect sizes smaller than 1 cm, suture repair can be considered. To date, little is known about the potential influencing factors on the outcome in small (< 2 cm) umbilical hernia repair. This multivariable analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry now aims to assess these factors.

methodsThe data of patients with primary elective umbilical hernia repair and defect size < 2 cm entered into the Herniamed Registry from September 1, 2009 to December 31, 2018 were analyzed to assess through multivariable analysis all confirmatory pre-defined potential influencing factors on the primary outcome criteria intraoperative and postoperative complications, general complications, complication-related reoperations, recurrence rate and rates of pain at rest, pain on exertion and chronic pain requiring treatment at 1-year follow-up.

results31,965 patients (60%) met the inclusion criteria. The proportion of suture repairs was 78.6% (n = 25,119), of open mesh repairs 15.2% (n = 4853), and of laparoscopic mesh repairs 6.2% (n = 1993). Compared with open mesh repair, suture repair had a highly significantly unfavorable association with the recurrence rate (OR = 1.956 [1.463; 2.614]; p < 0.001). Female gender also had an unfavorable relation to the recurrence rate (OR = 1.644 [1.385; 1.952]; p < 0.001). Compared with open mesh repair, open suture repair had a highly significantly favorable association with the rate of postoperative complications (OR = 0.583 [0.484; 0.702]; p < 0.001) and complication-related reoperations (OR = 0.567 [0.397; 0.810]; p = 0.002).While laparoscopic IPOM showed a favorable relationship with the postoperative complications and complication-related reoperations, it demonstrated an unfavorable association with the intraoperative complications, general complications, recurrence rate and pain rates.

conclusionSuture repair continues to be used for 78% of umbilical hernias with a defect < 2 cm. While suture repair has a favorable influence on the rates of postoperative complications and complication-related reoperations, it has a higher risk of recurrence. Female gender also has an unfavorable influence on the recurrence rate. Laparoscopic IPOM appears to be indicated only in settings of obesity (BMI ≥ 30).

Indexed as

Chronic PainHernia, UmbilicalFemaleHerniorrhaphyHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRecurrenceRegistriesSurgical Mesh

Identifiers

PMID32951104
OpenAlexW3087636946

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.