Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34158088›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

SUMMER Trial: mesh versus suture repair in small umbilical hernias in adults-a study protocol for a prospective randomized double-blind multicenter clinical trial.

M Melkemichel, S Bringman, G Granåsen, B Widhe

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT04231071 nacompletednot on this map

Randomized Double-blind Controlled Multicenter Trial Comparing Suture and Mesh Repair in Small Umbilical Hernias in Adults

TypeinterventionalSponsorKarolinska InstitutetRan2020 to 2024Enrolled288ConditionsUmbilical HerniaArmsOnlay Mesh group
NCT07156188 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

The PAPYRUS Study: Permanent vs. Absorbable Sutures in PrimarY Repair of Umbilical HerniaS: A Multicentre, Single-blind, Non-inferiority, Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of British ColumbiaRan2026 to 2030Enrolled914ConditionsHernia Surgery, Umbilical Hernia RepairArmsPermanent Suture, Absorbable
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Ventral hernia repair in India: a Delphi consensus.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    Review
  4. 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.

M MelkemichelDepartment of Surgery, Södertälje Hospital, Södertälje, Sweden. maria.melkemichel@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2161-2888
S BringmanDepartment of Surgery, Södertälje Hospital, Södertälje, Sweden.
G GranåsenDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
B WidheDepartment of Surgery, Södertälje Hospital, Södertälje, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmall umbilical hernia repair is one of the most common surgical performances in general surgery. Yet, a gold standard procedure for the repair is still lacking today. There is an increasing evidence that mesh could be advantageous compared to suture repair in lowering recurrence rates. An additional important question remains with regard to the optimal anatomical positioning of the mesh. We hypothesize that the use of an onlay mesh in small umbilical hernia defects can reduce recurrence rates without increasing the complications compared to a simple suture repair.

methodsA prospective, national, multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing a standardized 4 × 4 cm onlay mesh to a conventional suture repair will be conducted. A total of 288 patients with a primary elective umbilical hernia ≤ 2 cm from 7 participating Swedish surgical centers will be enrolled. Intraoperative randomization will take place using a centralized web-based system resulting in total allocation concealment. Stratification will be done by surgical site and by defect size. Trial participants and follow-up clinical surgeons will be blinded to the assigned allocation. The primary outcome assessed will be postoperative recurrence at 1 and 3 years. Secondary outcomes assessed will be postoperative complications at 30 days and pain 1 year after surgery. DISCUSSION: Currently, there has been no randomized clinical trial comparing the recurrence rates between an onlay mesh repair and a simple suture repair for small umbilical hernia defects. How to best repair a small umbilical hernia continues to be debated. This trial design should allow for a good assessment of the differences in recurrence rate due to the large sample size and the adequate follow-up. Surgeons' concerns surrounding optimal anatomical positioning and fear for larger required dissections are understandable. A small onlay mesh may become an easy and safe method of choice to reduce recurrence rates. Guidelines for small umbilical hernia repairs have stressed the need for reliable data to improve treatment recommendations. We can expect that this trial will have a direct implication on small umbilical hernia repair standards.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04231071. Registered on 31 January 2020. SUMMER Trial underwent external peer review as part of the funding process.

Indexed as

Hernia, UmbilicalAdultHerniorrhaphyHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecurrenceSurgical MeshSuturesMesh repairRandomized clinical trialRecurrenceSmall umbilical herniaSuture repair

Identifiers

PMID34158088
PMCPMC8218273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.