Trial reportThe British journal of surgery2022
Incisional hernia following colorectal cancer surgery according to suture technique: Hughes Abdominal Repair Randomized Trial (HART).
Trial report in The British journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Outcomes of Reinforced Tension-Line Sutures Versus Standard Closure Techniques in Patients Undergoing Laparotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy: CONTINT: a randomized controlled trial [NCT00544583].World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023Trial
- Article
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated With the Occurrence of Incisional Hernia in Patients Undergoing Midline Laparotomy.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Review
- Impact of incisional hernia on quality of life after colorectal cancer surgery - results of the Rein4CeTo1 randomized clinical trial.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
- Article
- The invite study: incisional hernia prevention: prophylactic mesh from the patient's perspective.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- Predictive model for recurrence of incisional hernia constructed by CT abdominal wall imaging features.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Suture Techniques and Materials for Fascial Closure of Abdominal Wall Incisions: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- Occurrence and prevention of incisional hernia following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Incidence, Healthcare Resource Use and Costs Associated With Incisional Hernia Repair.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2024Article
- Low incisional hernia incidence using a large-bite, low-tension technique for celiotomy closure.Surgery open science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncisional hernias cause morbidity and may require further surgery. HART (Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial) assessed the effect of an alternative suture method on the incidence of incisional hernia following colorectal cancer surgery.
methodsA pragmatic multicentre single-blind RCT allocated patients undergoing midline incision for colorectal cancer to either Hughes closure (double far-near-near-far sutures of 1 nylon suture at 2-cm intervals along the fascia combined with conventional mass closure) or the surgeon's standard closure. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia at 1 year assessed by clinical examination. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.
resultsBetween August 2014 and February 2018, 802 patients were randomized to either Hughes closure (401) or the standard mass closure group (401). At 1 year after surgery, 672 patients (83.7 per cent) were included in the primary outcome analysis; 50 of 339 patients (14.8 per cent) in the Hughes group and 57 of 333 (17.1 per cent) in the standard closure group had incisional hernia (OR 0.84, 95 per cent c.i. 0.55 to 1.27; P = 0.402). At 2 years, 78 patients (28.7 per cent) in the Hughes repair group and 84 (31.8 per cent) in the standard closure group had incisional hernia (OR 0.86, 0.59 to 1.25; P = 0.429). Adverse events were similar in the two groups, apart from the rate of surgical-site infection, which was higher in the Hughes group (13.2 versus 7.7 per cent; OR 1.82, 1.14 to 2.91; P = 0.011).
conclusionThe incidence of incisional hernia after colorectal cancer surgery is high. There was no statistical difference in incidence between Hughes closure and mass closure at 1 or 2 years. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN25616490 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).
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.