Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2024
The MESH-RTL Project for prevention of abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) in high-risk patients: noninferiority, randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04134455 (The Mesh-RTL Project for Prevention of Incisional Hernia), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
The Mesh-RTL Project for Prevention of Incisional Hernia: Clinical Trial of Non-inferiority to Compare Two Aponeurotic Closure Techniques in Midline Laparotomy in Patients With Elevated Risk for Hernia
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative Outcomes of Reinforced Tension-Line Sutures Versus Standard Closure Techniques in Patients Undergoing Laparotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Early and late outcomes of component separation with transversus abdominis release with mesh augmentation versus primary suturing for the management of abdominal dehiscence: a retrospective comparative study.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for the Prevention of Incisional Hernia: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare reinforced tension line (RTL) and mesh techniques in the onlay position for preventing abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) in a noninferiority clinical trial.
methodsPatients > 18 years old who underwent midline laparotomy and who were considered at high risk on the modified Rotterdam risk scale were included. The outcomes analyzed were the incidence of AWD and surgical site occurrence (SSO).
results239 patients were included: 121 mesh group and 118 RTL group. Five (4.1%) of the 121 patients in the mesh group and 7 (5.9%) of the 118 patients in the RTL group presented with AWD (p = 0.56, RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.22-2.13) in the per-protocol analysis. The median time of presentation was 6 days. The 95% CI (-0.0567, 0.0231) for the difference in incidence between the two groups was entirely within the predefined noninferiority margin of 5%. The incidence of complications did not significantly differ between the two groups: the mesh group (27, 22.3%) and the RTL group (16, 12.8%) (p = 0.09, RR (95% CI) = 1.64 (0.93-2.89)).
conclusionThe use of the RTL technique for preventing AWD was not inferior to the use of mesh in the onlay position, nor did it increase the risk of complications. This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov: Mesh-RTL Project (NCT04134455).
Indexed as
Identifiers
39453454What 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.