Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38252397›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024

Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.

P Marcolin, S Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo, B Oliveira Trindade, S Bueno Motter, G R Brandão, R-M D Mao, J M Moffett

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

P MarcolinSchool of Medicine, Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil. patricia.marcolin@estudante.uffs.edu.br.ORCID 0000-0003-3241-5545
S Mazzola Poli de FigueiredoDepartment of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2986-8164
B Oliveira TrindadeSchool of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5157-1108
S Bueno MotterSchool of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8041-4630
G R BrandãoSchool of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7224-0383
R-M D MaoDepartment of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2193-6986
J M MoffettDepartment of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-3545-9237
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USUniversidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre · BRUniversidade Federal da Fronteira Sul · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProphylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure is controversial. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the placement of prophylactic mesh during emergency laparotomy.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of Cochrane, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify RCT comparing prophylactic mesh augmentation and no mesh augmentation in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. We excluded observational studies, conference abstracts, elective surgeries, overlapping populations, and trial protocols. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I

resultsWe screened 1312 studies and 33 were thoroughly reviewed. Four studies comprising 464 patients were included in the analysis. Mesh reinforcement was significantly associated with a decrease in incisional hernia incidence (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.07-0.44; p < 0.001; I

conclusionsMesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy decreases incisional hernia and fascial dehiscence incidence. Despite the risk of seroma, prophylactic mesh augmentation appears to be safe and might be considered for emergency laparotomy closure. Further studies evaluating long-term outcomes are still needed.

Indexed as

Incisional HerniaLaparotomyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical MeshAbdominal Wound Closure TechniquesEmergenciesHumansSurgical Wound DehiscenceFascial dehiscenceInguinal herniaLaparotomyMesh

Identifiers

PMID38252397
OpenAlexW4391109532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.