Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35141102›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022

Reinforced Biologic Mesh Reduces Postoperative Complications Compared to Biologic Mesh after Ventral Hernia Repair.

Dharshan Sivaraj, Dominic Henn, Katharina S Fischer, Trudy S Kim, Cara K Black, John Q Lin, Janos A Barrera, Melissa C Leeolou, Nathan S Makarewicz, Kellen Chen and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Outcomes of Biosynthetic and Synthetic Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022
    Article
  9. 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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dharshan SivarajDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Dominic HennDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Katharina S FischerDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Trudy S KimDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Cara K BlackDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
John Q LinDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Janos A BarreraDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Melissa C LeeolouDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Nathan S MakarewiczDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Kellen ChenDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
David P PerraultDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Geoffrey C GurtnerDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Gordon K LeeDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Rahim NazeraliDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif.
Stanford University · USStanford Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of biologic mesh to reinforce the abdominal wall in ventral hernia repair has been proposed as a viable alternative to synthetic mesh, particularly for high-risk patients and in contaminated settings. However, a comparison of clinical outcomes between the currently available biologic mesh types has yet to be performed.

methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 141 patients who had undergone ventral hernia repair with biologic mesh, including noncross-linked porcine ADM (NC-PADM) (n = 51), cross-linked porcine ADM (C-PADM) (n = 17), reinforced biologic ovine rumen (RBOR) (n = 36), and bovine ADM (BADM) (n = 37) at the Stanford University Medical Center between 2002 and 2020. Postoperative donor site complications and rates of hernia recurrence were compared between patients with different biologic mesh types.

resultsAbdominal complications occurred in 47.1% of patients with NC-PADM, 52.9% of patients with C-PADM, 16.7% of patients with RBOR, and 43.2% of patients with BADM (

conclusionOur data indicate that RBOR decreases abdominal complications and recurrence rates after ventral hernia repair compared with NC-PADM, C-PADM, and BADM.

Identifiers

PMID35141102
PMCPMC8820910
OpenAlexW4211164160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.