ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2021
Surgical management of infected abdominal wall mesh: an analysis using the American Hernia Society Quality Collaborative.
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 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A practical algorithm for the management of mesh infection in abdominal wall surgery: learnings after 20 years of experience.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Successful photodynamic therapy for infectious complications of abdominoplasty using mesh implants: a case report.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2025Article
- A case of right inguinal necrotizing skin and soft-tissue infection.Clinical case reports · 2022Article
- Construction and properties of the silk fibroin and polypropylene composite biological mesh for abdominal incisional hernia repair.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSeveral management strategies exist for the treatment of infected abdominal mesh. Using the American Hernia Society Quality Collaborative, we examined management patterns and 30-day outcomes of infected mesh removal with concomitant incisional hernia repair.
methodsAll patients undergoing incisional hernia repair with removal of infected mesh were identified. A complete repair (CR) was defined as fascial closure with mesh; a partial repair (PR) was defined as fascial closure without mesh or no fascial closure with mesh. A two-tailed p value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 282 patients were identified: 136 patients in CR group and 146 patients in PR group. Patients had similar comorbidities but differed in wound class (class IV: 55% CR vs 83% SR, p < 0.001) and incidence of associated concomitant colorectal procedures (5% CR vs 18% SR, p = 0.015). Sublay placement was used primarily in CR (94%) compared to PR (52% inlay, 48% sublay). When comparing CR to PR, length of stay (median 6, p = 0.69), complications (40% vs 44%, p = 0.44), surgical site infections (16% vs 21%, p = 0.27), surgical site occurrence (30% vs 35%, p = 0.45), and readmission within 30 days (9% vs. 13%) were not statistically different.
conclusionsAnalysis of data from a multicenter hernia registry comparing CR and PR during infected mesh removal and concurrent incisional hernia repair has not identified higher rates of short-term complications between groups in the presence of infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33400028What OpenQuestion holds
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.