Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37149818›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2023

IPOM plus versus IPOM standard in incisional hernia repair: results of a prospective multicenter trial.

F Pizza, D D'Antonio, F S Lucido, L Brusciano, F M Mongardini, C Dell'Isola, A Brillantino, L Docimo, C Gambardella

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05712213 (Medium Terms Outcome of sIPOM vs pIPOM in Patients Affected by Incisional Hernia), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05712213 completednot on this map

Medium Terms Outcome of sIPOM vs pIPOM in Patients Affected by Incisional Hernia

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorUniversity of Campania Luigi VanvitelliRan2015 to 2022Enrolled187ConditionsIncisional HerniaArmsIntraperitoneal onlay mesh reinforcement with defect closure before placement of mesh (pIPOM), Standard intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (sIPOM)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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.

F PizzaDepartment of Surgery, Hospital "A. Rizzoli", LaccoAmeno Aslnapoli2nord, Naples, Italy. Francesco_pizza@libero.it.ORCID 0000-0001-9785-4405
D D'AntonioDepartment of Surgery, Hospital "A. Rizzoli", LaccoAmeno Aslnapoli2nord, Naples, Italy.
F S LucidoDivision of General, Mininvasive and Bariatric Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
L BruscianoDivision of General, Mininvasive and Bariatric Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
F M MongardiniDivision of General, Mininvasive and Bariatric Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
C Dell'IsolaAORN "Dei Colli" Monaldi-Cotugno-CTO Department of Infectious Diseases - Hepatologic Address Naples, Naples, Italy.
A BrillantinoAORN "A. Cardarelli" Division of General Surgery Naples, Naples, Italy.
L DocimoDivision of General, Mininvasive and Bariatric Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
C GambardellaDivision of General, Mininvasive and Bariatric Surgery, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLaparoscopic ventral hernia repair is a well-established technique with satisfying outcomes even at long term for the treatment of incisional and ventral hernia. However, the literature debate is still ongoing regarding the preferred surgical technique. Nowadays, two approaches are commonly adopted: the intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (sIPOM) and the intraperitoneal onlay mesh reinforcement with defect closure before mesh placement (pIPOM). The aim of this prospective analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes of patients treated for incisional hernia (IH) with sIPOM and pIPOM after 36 months follow-up in terms of recurrence, quality of life and wound events.

methodsPatients receiving pIPOM and sIPOM for IH were actively followed up for 36 months. At the outpatient clinic, hernia recurrence (HR), mesh bulging (MB), quality of life with the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) and wound events were assessed.

resultsBetween January 2015 and January 2019, 98 patients underwent a pIPOM and 89 underwent an sIPOM. At 36 months, nine patients (4 in pIPOM and 5 in sIPOM) experienced an HR, while MB was recorded in four patients in pIPOM and nine in sIPOM. No statistically significant difference could be identified also in terms of final GIQLI score and wound events.

conclusionsLVHR with or without fascial closure, also in our study, provides satisfactory results in terms of safety and efficacy. The discordant results in the literature are probably related to independent variables such as the type of mesh, the type of suture and closure technique. Therefore, was the funeral of sIPOM done too early? STUDY DATASET IS AVAILABLE ON CLINICALTRIALS. GOV ID: NCT05712213.

Indexed as

Incisional HerniaLaparoscopyHernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyHumansQuality of LifeRecurrenceSurgical MeshHernia recurrenceLaparoscopic ventral hernia repairpIPOMsIPOM

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.