ArticleSurgery in practice and science2025
Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: A surgeon's insights into defect closure.
Article in Surgery in practice and science, 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.
- Intraperitoneal Onlay mesh - non-closure (IPOM) vs. fascial closure (IPOM-Plus) vs. peritoneal bridging (IPOM-Pb) in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) is favored over open-repair methods due to reduced pain, shorter hospital stays, and lower recurrence rates. However, whether to close the hernial defect before placing the mesh remains debated. This study compares LVHR outcomes with and without defect closure. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 108 patients undergoing LVHR from 2018 to 2022. Group A (49 patients) underwent LVHR without defect closure, and Group B (59 patients) underwent LVHR with defect closure. Data on demographics, operative time, complication rates, postoperative pain, and hernia recurrence were analyzed. Patients were followed for at least 1 year after surgery. Results: Closing the hernial defect significantly reduced seroma formation (P = 0.04) and mesh bulge (P = 0.04). However, it was associated with longer operative times and higher immediate postoperative pain. Group A had shorter operative times and lower initial pain but higher rates of seroma formation (18.4 %) and mesh bulge (6.1 %). Group B had fewer seromas (5.1 %) and no mesh bulges but required longer surgeries and reported higher immediate postoperative pain. No significant differences were observed in hernia recurrence rates, hospital stays, or chronic pain levels. Mesh infections were only noted in the non-closure group (2.0 %). Conclusions: Defect closure during LVHR reduces seroma formation and mesh bulge but increases operative time and immediate postoperative pain. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to optimize LVHR protocols.
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.