ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Laparoscopic versus open mesh repairs for small-sized ventral and incisional hernias: a propensity score analysis of a retrospective cohort of patients.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFor ventral/incisional hernias between 1 and 4 cm, there is still controversy regarding open or laparoscopic mesh repairs. The study evaluated via a propensity-score adjusted analysis, the differences in outcomes between a laparoscopic and open ventral hernia mesh repair. METHODOLOGY: A single institution retrospective cohort study was performed. All patients with a ventral or incisional hernia between 1 and ≤ 4 cm, with a mesh repair, were reviewed. A propensity-score adjusted analysis was performed to account for baseline differences. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Outcome measures included recurrence, chronic pain, complications, postoperative adhesive occurrences, length of stay and operative duration.
resultsOver a 6-year period, 194 patients (91 laparoscopic; 103 open) were included. Mean follow-up duration and defect size were 8.0 months and 2.6 cm, respectively. Baseline differences in the univariate analysis between groups were adjusted for via propensity scoring. In the propensity-score adjusted analysis, a laparoscopic mesh repair was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of postoperative adhesive occurrences, with no differences in recurrence, chronic pain, complications, length of stay and operative duration. This association remained for hernia defects down to ≤ 3 cm. There were no significant differences between the laparoscopic and open groups when stratified for hernia defects of 1-2 cm. For the subgroup analysis, in contrast to an intraperitoneal on-lay mesh placement, open on-lay mesh placement was associated with a higher likelihood of postoperative adhesive occurrences.
conclusionFor patients with small-sized ventral/incisional hernias between 1 and 4 cm, laparoscopic mesh repairs may be associated with reduced postoperative adhesive occurrences, with no difference in other outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40045059What 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.