Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38319440›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024

Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) with fascial repair (IPOM-plus) for ventral and incisional hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

X Huang, X Shao, T Cheng, J Li

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 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Evaluating the impact of diastasis recti on ipom plus ventral hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

X HuangSchool of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, China.
X ShaoDepartment of General Surgery, Affiliated Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, China.
T ChengDepartment of General Surgery, Affiliated Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, China.
J LiDepartment of General Surgery, Affiliated Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210009, China. Lijunshenghd@126.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4422-9654

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDespite advancements in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) using the intraperitoneal onlay mesh technique (sIPOM), recurrence remains a common postoperative complication. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of defect closure (IPOM-plus) versus non-closure in ventral and incisional hernia repair. The aim is to determine which technique yields better outcomes in terms of reducing recurrence and complication rates.

methodsA comprehensive literature review was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from their inception until October 1, 2022, to identify all online English publications that compared the outcomes of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with and without fascia closure.

resultsThree randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eleven cohort studies involving 1585 patients met the inclusion criteria. The IPOM-plus technique was found to reduce the recurrence of hernias (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.35, 0.76], p < 0.01), seroma (OR = 0.48, 95% CI [0.32, 0.71], p < 0.01), and mesh bulging (OR = 0.08, 95% CI [0.01, 0.42], p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that body mass index (BMI) (OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.29, 0.65], p < 0.0001), type of article (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.35, 0.76], p = 0.0008 < 0.01), geographical location (OR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.36, 0.82], p = 0.004 < 0.01), follow-up time (OR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.34, 0.73], p = 0.0004 < 0.01) had a significant influence on the postoperative recurrence of the IPOM-plus technique.

conclusionThe IPOM-plus technique has been shown to greatly reduce the occurrence of recurrence, seroma, and mesh bulging. Overall, the IPOM-plus technique is considered a safe and effective procedure. However, additional randomized controlled studies with extended follow-up periods are necessary to further evaluate the IPOM-plus technique.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralIncisional HerniaLaparoscopyFasciaHerniorrhaphyHumansRecurrenceSeromaSurgical MeshFascia closureIncisional herniaIPOMIPOM-plusVentral

Identifiers

PMID38319440

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.