Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40459749›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025

Management of recurrent hiatal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mesh versus no mesh reinforcement.

Marta Goglia, Elisa Reitano, Gaetano Gallo, Silvana Perretta, Paolo Aurello, Niccolò Petrucciani, Francesco Maria Carrano, Giorgio Carlino, Gianfranco Silecchia

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Marta GogliaGeneral Surgery Division, Department of Medical, Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italia.ORCID 0000-0002-3763-8847
Elisa ReitanoDepartment of General Surgery, CHRU Strasbourg, IHU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. elisa.reitano@chru-strasbourg.fr.
Gaetano GalloDepartment of Surgery, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. gaetanogallo1988@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1066-4671
Silvana PerrettaDepartment of General Surgery, CHRU Strasbourg, IHU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Paolo AurelloDepartment of General Surgery, CHRU Strasbourg, IHU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
Niccolò PetruccianiGeneral Surgery Division, Department of Medical, Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italia.
Francesco Maria CarranoGeneral Surgery Division, Department of Medical, Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italia.
Giorgio CarlinoResearch Institute Against Digestive Cancer (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France.
Gianfranco SilecchiaGeneral Surgery Division, Department of Medical, Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRecurrent hiatal hernia (HH) is a significant challenge in surgical practice, with recurrence rates reported to range between 25% and 42%. This condition often requires redo surgeries, which are technically demanding and complex. While advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes, the optimal strategy for the surgical management of HH recurrence remains unclear. While mesh reinforcement is proposed to reduce recurrence, its use remains controversial due to potential complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate whether redo-surgery for HH with cruroplasty using mesh reinforcement was superior to suture cruroplasty in terms of postoperative complications and mortality. To our knowledge, there is no existing review on the topic using a systematic approach. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies evaluating postoperative outcomes of redo surgery for recurrent HH with and without mesh reinforcement were included. A random-based model was used in the meta-analysis to explore potential between-study heterogeneity. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The risk of bias was assessed with the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (Version 2) ROBINS-I.

resultsA total of 14 studies with 1011 patients were included. No statistically significant difference was observed in postoperative complications (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.32-1.04, p = 0.07) or mortality (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.08-1.98, p = 0.27) between mesh-reinforced and non-reinforced cruroplasty. However, the results suggest a numerical tendency toward lower rates in the mesh group, which did not reach statistical significance. The funnel plots were symmetrical, suggesting no significant publication bias. The overall quality of evidence was moderate, with considerable heterogeneity among studies.

conclusionThis review highlights the sheer lack of robust data on the benefit of mesh placement in HH repair and the significant heterogeneity in the available literature. Although mesh reinforcement shows a potential trend toward better outcomes, it does not achieve statistical significance in reducing complications or mortality. New prospective, RCTs are necessary to better evaluate the benefits and risks of mesh placement.

Indexed as

Hernia, HiatalHerniorrhaphySurgical MeshHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRecurrenceReoperationMesh reinforcementRecurrent hiatal herniaRedo surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.