ReviewCureus2023
Onlay Versus Sublay Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernias: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07401446 (Comparison of Complication Rates of Onlay vs Sublay Mesh Repair of Incisional Hernia), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Comparison of Complication Rates of Onlay vs Sublay Mesh Repair of Incisional Hernia
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Onlay repair for abdominal wall hernias: a valid alternative. Systematic review and comparison with international standards.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Prospective Comparative Analysis of Onlay Versus Sublay Mesh Placement.Cureus · 2026Article
- Mesh placement and risk of reoperation for recurrence after incisional hernia repair: a nationwide register-based cohort study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of SCOM/SCOLA vs. IPOM PLUS in Umbilical and para-umbilical hernia repairs.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Abdominal Wall Reinforcement Using OviTex after Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap.Journal of reconstructive microsurgery · 2026Article
- Collagen metabolism and incisional hernia recurrence: a comparative study between oncologic and non-oncologic patients.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incisional hernias are a common problem following major abdominal surgery. There are numerous surgical techniques described in the existing English scientific literature with different planes for mesh placement. The current review aims to compare onlay versus sublay repair in managing incisional hernias. A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Medline to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing onlay versus sublay mesh repair for incisional hernias. We identified six RCTs that included 986 patients, of whom 503 were in the onlay group and 485 were in the sublay group. There was no statistically significant difference in hernia recurrence between the onlay and sublay groups (odds ratio (OR): 1.3 (0.49-3.47), 95% confidence interval (CI), p=0.60). Seroma formation was significantly higher in the onlay group (OR: 2.85 (1.74-4.67), 95% CI, p<0.0001). There were 45 reported cases of surgical site infection (SSI). There was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 1.46 (0.44-4.84), 95% CI, p=0.54). Haematomas were reported in 11 cases, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 2.13 (0.56-8.19), 95% CI, p=0.27). Four RCTs reported the length of the hospital stay. There was no significant difference between the two groups (mean difference (MD): 0.53 (-0.16-1.22), 95% CI, p=0.13). We failed to draw conclusive clinical recommendations due to the variability in the included RCTs. We recommend well-structured, large-volume RCTs to better compare these two surgical techniques.
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.