Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36973782›Full record

Trial reportBMC surgery2023

Synthetic mesh versus biological mesh to prevent incisional hernia after loop-ileostomy closure: a randomized feasibility trial.

Elisa J Mäkäräinen, Heikki T Wiik, Jyrki Ao Kössi, Tarja M Pinta, Leena-Mari J Mäntymäki, Anne K Mattila, Matti Vj Kairaluoma, Pasi P Ohtonen, Tero T Rautio

Open access · goldFull text readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Type of mesh and wall plane in prophylactic mesh after stoma closure: A network meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Elisa J MäkäräinenMedical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, PL 10, Oulu, 90029, Finland. Elisa.Makarainen@pohde.fi.
Heikki T WiikMedical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, PL 10, Oulu, 90029, Finland.
Jyrki Ao KössiPäijät-Häme Central Hospital, Keskussairaalankatu 7, Lahti, 15850, Finland.
Tarja M PintaSeinäjoki Central Hospital, Hanneksenrinne 7, Seinäjoki, 60220, Finland.
Leena-Mari J MäntymäkiTampere University Hospital, Elämänaukio 2, Tampere, 33520, Finland.
Anne K MattilaKeski-Suomi Central Hospital, Hoitajantie 3, Jyväskylä, 40620, Finland.
Matti Vj KairaluomaKeski-Suomi Central Hospital, Hoitajantie 3, Jyväskylä, 40620, Finland.
Pasi P OhtonenMedical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, PL 10, Oulu, 90029, Finland.
Tero T RautioMedical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, PL 10, Oulu, 90029, Finland.
Oulu University Hospital · FICentral Finland Health Care District · FIPäijät-Hämeen Keskussairaala · FISeinäjoki University of Applied Sciences · FITampere University Hospital · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncisional hernia is a frequent complication after loop-ileostomy closure, rationalizing hernia prevention. Biological meshes have been widely used in contaminated surgical sites instead of synthetic meshes in fear of mesh related complications. However, previous studies on meshes does not support this practice. The aim of Preloop trial was to study the safety and efficacy of synthetic mesh compared to a biological mesh in incisional hernia prevention after loop-ileostomy closure.

methodsThe Preloop randomized, feasibility trial was conducted from April 2018 until November 2021 in four hospitals in Finland. The trial enrolled 102 patients with temporary loop-ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer. The study patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either a light-weight synthetic polypropylene mesh (Parietene Macro™, Medtronic) (SM) or a biological mesh (Permacol™, Medtronic) (BM) to the retrorectus space at ileostomy closure. The primary end points were rate of surgical site infections (SSI) at 30-day follow-up and incisional hernia rate during 10 months' follow-up period.

resultsOf 102 patients randomized, 97 received the intended allocation. At 30-day follow-up, 94 (97%) patients were evaluated. In the SM group, 1/46 (2%) had SSI. Uneventful recovery was reported in 38/46 (86%) in SM group. In the BM group, 2/48 (4%) had SSI (p > 0.90) and in 43/48 (90%) uneventful recovery was reported. The mesh was removed from one patient in both groups (p > 0.90).

conclusionsBoth a synthetic mesh and biological mesh were safe in terms of SSI after loop-ileostomy closure. Hernia prevention efficacy will be published after the study patients have completed the 10 months' follow-up.

Indexed as

Incisional HerniaFeasibility StudiesHerniaHumansIleostomySurgical MeshSurgical Wound InfectionBiological meshIncisional hernia preventionLoop-ileostomy closureRectal cancerSynthetic mesh

Identifiers

PMID36973782
PMCPMC10045611
OpenAlexW4360998908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read16
identifiers read1
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.