Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
No difference in outcomes between large- and small-pore meshes in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial investigating open retromuscular meshplasty for incisional hernia repair.
Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT04961346 (Sublay Technique With Retromuscular Mesh Augmentation for Incisional Hernia Repair - A Prospective Randomized Multicentre Trial Comparing "Lightweight" Versus "Heavyweight" Meshes), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Sublay Technique With Retromuscular Mesh Augmentation for Incisional Hernia Repair - A Prospective Randomized Multicentre Trial Comparing "Lightweight" Versus "Heavyweight" Meshes
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heavyweight versus non-heavyweight mesh in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of medium-weight vs heavy-weight mesh in minimally invasive extraperitoneal ventral hernia repairs.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- 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
- Health-related quality of life outcomes of bioabsorbable Phasix Mesh versus permanent synthetic mesh following open ventral hernia repair: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Review
- The optimal mesh weight in onlay repair depends on ventral hernia type: a nationwide register-based cohort study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA randomized, controlled, prospective multicenter clinical trial with a parallel group design was initiated in eight surgical centers to compare a large-pore polypropylene mesh (Ultrapro
methodsBetween 2004 and 2006, patients with a fascial defect with a minimum diameter of 4 cm after vertical midline laparotomy were recruited for the trial. Patients underwent retromuscular meshplasty with either a large-pore or a small-pore mesh to identify the superiority of the large-pore mesh. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 5 and 21 days and 4, 12, and 24 months after surgery. A clinical examination, a modified short form 36 (SF-36
resultsIn 8 centers, 181 patients were included in the study. Neither foreign body sensation within the first year after surgery (27.5% Ultrapro
conclusionDespite considerable differences in theoretical and experimental works, we have not been able to identify differences in surgical or patient-reported outcomes between the use of large- and small-pore meshes for retromuscular incisional hernia repair.
trial registrationClinical Trials NCT04961346 (16.06.2021) retrospectively registered.
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.