ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery2025
A prospective observational study on intraperitoneal mesh repair for small ventral hernias: Why open prevails over laparoscopic approach.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Single-surgeon learning curve for robotic-assisted transabdominal retromuscular repair with Hugo RAS™ surgical system.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWith the ever-increasing demand for laparoscopic hernia repair, it is important to scrutinise the benefit in terms of recurrence, pain and cosmesis with the open technique for small ventral hernias.The objective is to compare the outcomes of open and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for small ventral hernias (defect size <3 cm). PATIENTS AND
methodsA prospective analysis of patients who underwent surgical mesh repair for ventral hernias with defects smaller than 3 cm between January 2021 and September 2022. Ventral patch composite mesh (Ventralex™) and composite Prolene-cellulose mesh (Proceed™) were utilised. We collected and analysed patient characteristics, operative findings and post-operative data, including recurrence rates, pain scores and cosmetic satisfaction over a 12-month follow-up period.
resultsAmong the 116 patients included in the study, 54 underwent laparoscopic IPOM repair, while 62 underwent open IPOM repair. The laparoscopic group had an average hernia defect size of 2.7 cm (±0.3), while for the open repair group, it was 2.4 cm (±0.4). The duration of open repair was notably shorter than that of laparoscopic repair (54 min [±16] vs. 94 min [±27]; P = 0.001). Postoperatively, there were significant differences between the groups in terms of VAS scale pain score on post-operative day 1 ([7 ± 2 vs. 4 ± 2]; P = 0.008). Eight cases developed surgical site infections requiring oral antibiotics in the open group, whereas the laparoscopic group had 3 cases ( P = 0.6).
conclusionOpen IPOM repair can be considered as a favourable option for ventral hernias <3 cm when compared to laparoscopic IPOM repair, primarily due to its shorter operative time, ease of spinal anaesthesia, single incision, shorter learning curve and absence of risks associated with port-site hernias. Higher initial pain in the laparoscopic group can be attributed to the use of absorbable tacks and transfascial sutures. No discernible disparities were observed in terms of chronic pain or recurrence rates between these surgical approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.