Trial reportCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie
Is the type of biomesh relevant in the prevention of recurrence following abdominal wall reconstruction? A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scoping review of outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials of incisional and non-incisional ventral hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Do we have a safety issue with the introduction of modern medical devices?Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
- Article
- Inflammatory Reaction and Formation of Adhesions after Intraperitoneal Application of Biological SIS Mesh.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
- Does the type of biomesh influence recurrence in abdominal wall reconstruction? A long-term follow-up to a randomized controlled trial.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplex abdominal wall reconstruction technique remains controversial. The use of biologic mesh products is also debated in active infection, sepsis prophylaxis and high-risk patients. Differences in biologic mesh technology and cost remain significant. We aimed to compare the efficacy of 2 commonly used biologic meshes in regards to hernia recurrence at 1 year.
methodsThis study was a parallel, dual-arm, double-blind randomized controlled trial involving adult patients undergoing complex abdominal wall reconstruction with a biologic mesh at a quaternary care institution (2017-2020). Patients were randomly assigned to receive Permacol (cross-linked) compared with Strattice (not crosslinked). The main outcome measure was hernia recurrence at 1 or more years following the index repair.
resultsWe included 94 patients randomized to undergo reconstruction with 1 of 2 commonly used biologic mesh products (mean age 59.4 yr, standard deviation [SD] 9.9; 51% female; body mass index 32.9, SD 6.8). We found no significant differences between the groups (patient comorbidities, hernia recurrence risk factors, hernia size or infection profiles). Hernia recurrence rates (15%) were similar between groups (median 783 days of follow up, interquartile range 119). We found there was significantly less of a need for a component separation technique in the Strattice group (69% v. 87%). All other secondary outcome measures were equivalent between study arms. Multivariate analysis identified hepatic transplantation (odds ratio [OR] 1.94, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.33-4.41), active abdominal wall infection (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.50-7.01), and more than 1 previous hernia repair (OR 2.68, 95% CI 0.41-5.99) as risk factors for subsequent hernia recurrence; however, there was no difference in recurrence factors between patient study groups.
conclusionGiven similar clinical performance between the 2 most commonly used biologic mesh products, the most cost effective mesh should be used in cost-conscious health care systems.
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.