SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2022
Fascial defect closure versus bridged repair in laparoscopic ventral hernia mesh repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Fascial Defect Closure Versus Bridged Repair in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Mesh Repair.World journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of facial defect closure and non-fascial closure in ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) with fascial repair (IPOM-plus) for ventral and incisional hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias: the Italian national guidelines.Updates in surgery · 2023Guideline
- Recurrence rate and mesh bulging are reduced with primary fascial closure in ventral hernia repair: the PROSECO randomized clinical trial.The British journal of surgery · 2025Trial
- Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: early follow-up of a randomized controlled study of primary fascial closure before mesh placement.The British journal of surgery · 2024Trial
- Postoperative outcomes and wound events in incisional hernia repair using hybrid mesh: results from a prospective multicenter italian study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- Deep learning model utilizing clinical data alone outperforms image-based model for hernia recurrence following abdominal wall reconstruction with long-term follow up.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Comment to "fascial defect closure versus bridged repair in laparoscopic ventral hernia mesh repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials".Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
- "Fascial defect closure versus bridged repair in laparoscopic ventral hernia mesh repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Author's reply".Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSeveral studies have examined effectiveness of primary fascial defect closure (FDC) versus bridged repair (no-FDC) during laparoscopic ventral hernia mesh repair (LVHMR). The purpose of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyse randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared safety and effectiveness of two techniques.
methodsSystematic literature searches (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and CINAHL) were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines using predefined terms. RCTs comparing FDC and no-FDC in LVHMR were identified and retrieved. Primary outcomes were risk of recurrence and risk of major complications analyzed as a single composite outcome. Secondary outcomes were risks of seroma formation, clinical or radiologically confirmed eventration, incidence of readmission to hospital, postoperative changes in quality of life (QoL), and postoperative pain. Random effects modeling to summarize statistics were performed. The risk of bias was assessed using Cohrane's Risk of Bias tool 2.
resultsThree RCTs that enrolled total of 259 patients were included. There was clinical heterogeneity present between studies related to patients' characteristics, hernia characteristics, and operative techniques. There was no difference found in primary outcomes, risks of seroma formation, eventration, and chronic pain. There is conflicting evidence on how both techniques affect postoperative QoL or early postoperative pain.
conclusionsBoth techniques were detected to have equal safety profile and do not differ in risk of recurrence, seroma formation, risks of clinical or radiological eventration. Giving uncertainty and clinical equipoise, another RCT examining FDC vs no-FDC laparoscopic mesh repair separately for primary and secondary hernias using narrow inclusion criteria for hernia size on well-defined population would be ethical and pragmatic. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021274581.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.