ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Emergency umbilical and epigastric hernia repair: nationwide registry-based study of long-term recurrence, mesh-related, and other complications.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smoking, obesity and reoperation after elective open mesh repair of umbilical hernia: nationwide cohort study.BJS open · 2026Article
- EHS Guidelines on the Management of Primary Ventral and Incisional Hernias Under Emergency Conditions.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmergency umbilical and epigastric hernia repairs (EUEHR) are common but understudied procedures. The role of different mesh positions in emergency settings is a topic of significant interest.
methodsA retrospective nationwide Danish cohort study of patients who underwent EUEHR from 2015 to 2020. A complete follow-up was obtained on December 31, 2023, through linkage of nationwide registries and full scrutiny of medical files for those patients who underwent a reoperation. The primary outcome was operation for recurrence. Secondary outcomes were non-recurrence reoperations, early (< 90 days) reoperations, and operations for severe complications. Multivariable analyses were performed using Fine-and-Gray competing risk models.
results639 patients were registered in the database, and 70.6% underwent mesh repair (open onlay: 44.1%, open sublay: 15.3%, or laparoscopic intraperitoneal (lap-IPOM): 11.1%. The median follow-up time was 4.3 years. The 5-year risk of operations for recurrence was lower after mesh use compared to suture (n = 6 (1.7%) vs. n = 8 (4.7%); p = 0.023), with a hazard ratio (HR) 0.32 (95% CI (0.11-0,92); p = 0.034). The 5-year risk of operation for other complications was similar between the suture and mesh group (n = 28 (6.2%) vs. n = 9 (4.8%); p = 0.40, HR 1.12 (0.51-2.48; p = 0.77)). Surgical site infection occurred in 1.1%, 4.3%, 2.0%, and 2.8% of suture, onlay, sublay, and Lap-IPOM repairs, respectively. Few complications were directly mesh related: onlay n = 3 (1.1%), sublay n = 2 (2.0%), and Lap-IPOM n = 1 (1.4%). Early (< 90 days) operation for other complications was more frequent after onlay than suture repair (Odds-ratio 2.95 (0.094-12.2): p = 0.066). In sub-group analysis, lap-IPOM showed a trend towards more severe complications than suture repair (HR 7.85 (0.82-75.5); p = 0.074).
conclusionMesh repair significantly reduced operation for recurrence after EUEHR compared to suture repair with a similar risk of operation for other complications. Onlay may cause more early reoperations compared to suture repair and lap-IPOM may be associated with more severe complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40404883What 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.