ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Slowly absorbable mesh in sublay ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative outcomes of bioabsorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate versus synthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair: A propensity-matched cohort study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Absorbable mesh is associated with a higher risk of recurrence and reoperation: a propensity score-matched comparison of mesh performance in clean and contaminated ventral hernia repairs.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the past years, there has been increasing evidence that supports the use of permanent mesh in contaminated wounds. Given this increased evidence, the indications to opt for slowly absorbable "biosynthetic" prostheses have been questioned. To address this, we compared the outcomes of slowly absorbable mesh in contaminated cases in a well-matched multicentric cohort.
methodsThe Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) database was queried for patients undergoing elective ventral hernia repair in Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-III operations (2013-2022). We compared demographics, hernia characteristics, and postoperative outcomes among types of mesh. We used propensity score matching to adjust for sex, diabetes, body mass index, smoking status, and operative time between mesh groups. Patients within other CDC classes and those with mesh positioned elsewhere than retro-rectus/preperitoneal space were excluded.
resultsA total of 760 patients were included in the analysis. Slowly absorbable synthetic mesh (SA) was utilized in only 7% of the cases, while permanent (P) and biologic (B) mesh in 77% and 16%, respectively. After matching, 255 patients were studied. There was no difference in surgical site occurrence (8% SA, 16% P, 10% B, p = 0.27), surgical site infection (20% SA, 17% P, 12% B p = 0.54), surgical site occurrence requiring intervention (18% SA, 13% P, 14% B p = 0.72), readmission (12% SA, 14% P, 12% B, p = 0.90), or reoperation (8% SA, 2% P, 4% B, p = 0.14) at 30 days. In patients with 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in recurrence among groups (20% SA, 26% P, 24% B p = 0.90).
conclusionBased on our findings, SA has comparable outcomes to other types of mesh, particularly when an optimal retro-rectus repair is performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37670192What 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.