Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39368031›Full record

ArticleUpdates in surgery2024

PROsthetic MEsh Reinforcement in elective minimally invasive paraesophageal hernia repair (PROMER): an international survey.

Alberto Aiolfi, Davide Bona, Andrea Sozzi, Luigi Bonavina, PROMER Collaborative Group

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Updates in surgery, 2024. 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
–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

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

  1. Efficacy and safety of mesh reinforced cruroplasty with Phasix™ ST vs. Bio-AHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of crural reinforcement with bio-aHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  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

5 authors.

Alberto AiolfiDivision of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Science for Health, I.R.C.C.S. Ospedale Galeazzi, Sant'Ambrogio, University of Milan, Via C. Belgioioso, 173, 20157, Milan, Italy. alberto.aiolfi86@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7764-6075
Davide BonaDivision of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Science for Health, I.R.C.C.S. Ospedale Galeazzi, Sant'Ambrogio, University of Milan, Via C. Belgioioso, 173, 20157, Milan, Italy.
Andrea SozziDivision of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical Science for Health, I.R.C.C.S. Ospedale Galeazzi, Sant'Ambrogio, University of Milan, Via C. Belgioioso, 173, 20157, Milan, Italy.
Luigi BonavinaDivision of General and Foregut Surgery, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
PROMER Collaborative Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The optimal treatment for paraesophageal hiatus hernia (PEH) is controversial. While crural buttressing with mesh shows promises in reducing recurrences, the decision to use mesh during minimally invasive PEH repair is largely subjective. Due to these uncertainties, we conducted a survey to examine current clinical practices among surgeons and to assess which are the most important determinants in the decision-making process for mesh placement. Thirty-five multiple-choice Google Form-based survey on work-up, surgical techniques, and issues are considered in the decision-making process for mesh augmentation during minimally invasive PEH repair. Responses were graded on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Consensus was defined as > 70% of participants agreed (agree or strongly agree) on a specific statement. Overall, 292 surgeons (86% from Europe) participated in the survey. The median age of participants was 42 years (range 29-69). The median number of PEH procedures was 25/year/center (range 5-400), with 67% of participants coming from high-volume centers (> 20 procedures/year). Consensus on use of mesh was reached for intraoperative findings of large (> 50% of intrathoracic stomach) PEH (74.3%), crural gap with > 4 cm distance between right and left crus (77.1%), and/or crural atrophy with < 0.5 cm thickness of one or both pillars (73%), and for redo surgery (71.9%). Further, consensus was reached in defining recurrence as a combination of refractory symptoms and anatomical/radiological evidence of > 2 cm hernia. This survey shows that large PEH, wide crural transverse diameter, fragile crura, and redo surgery are the most influential issues driving the decision for mesh-reinforced cruroplasty.

Indexed as

Hernia, HiatalHerniorrhaphyMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresSurgical MeshAdultAgedClinical Decision-MakingElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesMeshParaesophageal herniaPosterior cruroplastyRecurrenceSurvey

Identifiers

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.