Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35143628›Full record

ArticleBJS open2022

Prophylactic retrorectus mesh versus no mesh in midline emergency laparotomy closure for prevention of incisional hernia (PREEMER): study protocol for a multicentre, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

Elisa Mäkäräinen, Matti Tolonen, Ville Sallinen, Panu Mentula, Ari Leppäniemi, Mirella Ahonen-Siirtola, Juha Saarnio, Pasi Ohtonen, Filip Muysoms, Tero Rautio

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BJS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04311788 (Preemer Trial - Prophylactic Mesh Versus no Mesh in the Midline Emergency Laparotomy Closure for Prevention of Incisional Hernia), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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.

NCT04311788 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Preemer Trial - Prophylactic Mesh Versus no Mesh in the Midline Emergency Laparotomy Closure for Prevention of Incisional Hernia: a Multi Center, Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OuluRan2020 to 2028Enrolled109ConditionsIncisional Hernia, Emergency Laparotomy, Midline Laparotomy, Hernia PreventionArmsProphylactic self gripping mesh, Slowly absorbable continuous monofilament suture
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Elisa MäkäräinenDepartment of Surgery, Medical Research Center, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-4408-2514
Matti TolonenDepartment of Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Ville SallinenDepartment of Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5394-4169
Panu MentulaDepartment of Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-6516-3797
Ari LeppäniemiDepartment of Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Mirella Ahonen-SiirtolaDepartment of Surgery, Medical Research Center, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Juha SaarnioDepartment of Surgery, Medical Research Center, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Pasi OhtonenDepartment of Surgery, Medical Research Center, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Filip MuysomsHospital AZ Maria Middelares, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2413-1692
Tero RautioDepartment of Surgery, Medical Research Center, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Oulu University Hospital · FIHelsinki University Hospital · FIAZ Maria Middelares · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the fact that emergency midline laparotomy is a risk factor for an incisional hernia, active research on hernia prevention in emergency settings is lacking. Different kinds of meshes and mesh positions have been studied in elective abdominal surgery, but no randomized controlled trials in emergency settings have been published thus far.

methodThe PREEMER trial (registration number NCT04311788) is a multicentre, patient- and assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial to be conducted in six hospitals in Finland. A total of 244 patients will be randomized at a 1 : 1 ratio to either the retrorectus mesh group, featuring a self-gripping prophylactic mesh, or to the no mesh (control) group, both closed by small-stitch 4 : 1 closure with continuous slowly absorbable monofilament suturing. The primary outcome of the PREEMER trial is the incidence of incisional hernia 2 years after surgery, which will be detected clinically and/or radiologically. Secondary outcomes are the Comprehensive Complication Index score, incidence of surgical-site infections and fascial dehiscence within 30 days of surgery; the incisional hernia repair rate and mesh- or hernia-related reoperations within the 2- and 5-year follow-ups; the incidence of incisional hernia within the 5-year follow-up; and quality of life measured by RAND-36, the Activities Assessment Scale and the PROMIS questionnaire within 30 days and 2 and 5 years from surgery. Additionally, health-economic explorative measures will be explored.

conclusionThe PREEMER trial will provide level 1 evidence on incisional hernia prevention in an emergency setting. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04311788 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). Registered 7 March 2020.

Indexed as

Abdominal Wound Closure TechniquesIncisional HerniaHumansLaparotomyMulticenter Studies as TopicQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Mesh

Identifiers

PMID35143628
PMCPMC8830749
OpenAlexW4206410336

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.