Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36600861›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Comparison of Surgical Treatment Results of Large Incisional Hernias.

Ercan Korkut, Nurhak Aksungur, Necip Altundaş, Salih Kara, Ferdi Cambaztepe, Rıfat Peksöz, Kamber Kaşali

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ercan KorkutGeneral Surgery, Atatürk University Faculty of Medicine, Erzurum, TUR.
Nurhak AksungurGeneral Surgery, Atatürk University Faculty of Medicine, Erzurum, TUR.
Necip AltundaşGeneral Surgery, Atatürk University Faculty of Medicine, Erzurum, TUR.
Salih KaraGeneral Surgery, Atatürk University Faculty of Medicine, Erzurum, TUR.
Ferdi CambaztepeGeneral Surgery, Atatürk University Faculty of Medicine, Erzurum, TUR.
Rıfat PeksözGeneral Surgery, Atatürk University Faculty of Medicine, Erzurum, TUR.
Kamber KaşaliBiostatistics, Atatürk University Faculty of Medicine, Erzurum, TUR.
Atatürk University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Incisional hernias are one of the most common complications after abdominal surgery. Surgical repairs of large incisional hernias have higher complications and recurrence rates compared to smaller incisional hernia repairs. For this reason, it is a more difficult and experience-requiring application for surgeons. In addition, there is no evidence-based consensus in the literature regarding the optimal surgical treatment of large incisional hernias. The aim of this study is to compare the results of the three most common surgical treatment methods used in a tertiary university hospital for the repair of large incisional hernias in terms of patients' characteristics, recurrence, and complication rates of the treatment methods. Methods Between 2014 and 2020, 366 patients with incisional hernias with facial defects larger than 10 cm in a tertiary medical faculty hospital located in eastern Turkey were analyzed. Patients were divided into three groups according to the surgical method used: open onlay prolene mesh (OPM) method, laparoscopic intraperitoneal sublay dual mesh (IPSDM) method, and open IPSDM method. Postoperative complications were divided into five groups as follows: wound complications, complications due to surgical procedures, medical complications, recurrences, and mortality. Treatment methods were compared according to the demographic characteristics of the patients and the postoperative complication rates. Results Of the patients, 141 were male and 225 were female, and the mean age was 58.0 ± 28 years. Of the patients, 81.9% were operated on with the open OPM, 10.9% with the laparoscopic IPSDM, and 7.1% with the open IPSDM. Wound complications occurred in 26.7% of patients, surgical complications in 3.2%, medical complications in 6.5%, recurrence in 9.2%, and mortality in 0.8% of patients. Total wound complications were significantly higher in the open OPM group (30%) (p = 0.009). Total surgery complications were significantly higher in the laparoscopic IPSDM group (15%) (p = 0.002). There was no significant difference between groups for medical complications (p = 0.540). Although no recurrence was observed in the open IPSDM group, no significant difference was observed between the groups (p = 0.099). There was no difference in mortality rates between the groups (p = 0.450). The overall complication rate was highest in the open OPM group (48.3%) and lowest in the open IPSDM group (27%) (p = 0.092). The operative time was found to be significantly shorter in open IPSDM (p < 0.001). The length of hospital stay was highest in the open OPM group and lowest in the open IPSDM group (p = 0.450). Conclusions Although hernia defect is greater in the open IPSDM compared to other methods, this method is more advantageous in terms of the complication rate associated with the surgical procedure, the overall complication rate, the duration of surgery, and the recurrence rate. Laparoscopic IPSDM is a more advantageous method in terms of the overall wound and medical complications.

Indexed as

complicationsincisional herniaincisional hernia repairlaparoscopic intraperitoneal sublay mesh methodlarge incisional hernia repairopen intraperitoneal sublay dual mesh methodopen onlay prolene mesh method

Identifiers

PMID36600861
PMCPMC9799076
OpenAlexW4310287152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.