Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Short-term complications after onlay versus preperitoneal mesh repair of umbilical hernias: a prospective randomized double-blind trial.
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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Onlay repair for abdominal wall hernias: a valid alternative. Systematic review and comparison with international standards.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Onlay mesh versus suture repair for smaller umbilical hernias in adults-early results from SUMMER trial: randomized clinical trial.BJS open · 2024Trial
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the incidence of surgical site occurrences (SSOs) following onlay versus preperitoneal mesh placement in elective open umbilical hernia repairs.
methodsThis study presents a secondary analysis of a randomized double-blind trial conducted on female patients with primary umbilical hernias admitted to a general hospital, in a residency training program setting. Fifty-six subjects were randomly assigned to either onlay (n=30) or preperitoneal (n=26) mesh repair group. Data on baseline demographics, past medical history, perioperative details, postoperative pain (visual analogue scale (VAS)), wound-related complications, and recurrence were assessed using a standardized protocol.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed between groups regarding patients' demographics, comorbidities, or defect size. Operative time averaged 67.5 (28-110) min for onlay and 50.5 (31-90) min for preperitoneal repairs, p=.03. The overall rate of SSOs was 21.4% (n=12), mainly in the onlay group (33% vs 7.7%; p=0.02, 95% CI 0.03-0.85) and mostly due to seromas. There were no between-group significant differences in postoperative VAS scores at all timepoints. After a maximum follow-up of 48 months, one recurrence was reported in the onlay group. By logistic regression, the onlay technique was the only independent risk factor for SSOs.
conclusionThe presented data identified a decreased wound morbidity in preperitoneal umbilical hernia repairs, thus contributing to the limited body of evidence regarding mesh place selection in future guidelines. Further cases from this ongoing study and completion of follow-up are expected to also compare both techniques in terms of long-term outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) UTN code: U1111-1205-0065 (date of registration: March 27, 2018).
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.