Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34800188›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2022

Intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

M Yeow, S Wijerathne, D Lomanto

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Use of PERitoneal free flap (PERFF) augmentation in complex ventral hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Robotic Platform: What It Does and Does Not Offer in Hernia Surgery.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. The impact of value-driven outcomes initiative on endo-laparoscopic groin hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

M YeowYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1023-7402
S WijerathneMinimally Invasive Surgical Centre, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore.
D LomantoMinimally Invasive Surgical Centre, Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore. davide_lomanto@nuhs.edu.sg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe ideal location for mesh placement in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) is still up for debate. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) to evaluate the outcomes of patients who received intraperitoneal mesh versus those that received extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive VHR.

methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus from inception to May 3, 2021. We selected studies comparing intraperitoneal mesh versus extraperitoneal mesh placement in minimally invasive VHR. A meta-analysis was done for the outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence. A subgroup analysis was conducted for a subset of studies comparing patients who have undergone intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus extended totally extraperitoneal approach (e-TEP).

resultsA total of 11 studies (2320 patients) were identified. We found no statistically significant difference between patients who received intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh for outcomes of SSI, seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence [(RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.60-4.27), (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.68-2.81), (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.45-3.72), (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.69-2.86), and (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.22-6.63), respectively]. The subgroup analysis had findings similar to the overall analysis.

conclusionBased on short-term results, extraperitoneal mesh does not appear to be superior to intraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. The choice of mesh location should be based on the current evidence, surgeon, and center experience as well as individualized to each patient.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralLaparoscopyHematomaHerniorrhaphyHumansSeromaSurgical MeshSurgical Wound InfectionTreatment OutcomeExtraperitonealIntraperitonealMesh placementMinimally invasiveVentral hernia repair

Identifiers

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.