SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025
Meta-analysis of controlled studies comparing biologic and synthetic unabsorbable mesh in contaminated fields.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Full-thickness skin and dermal grafts as abdominal wall augmentation in ventral hernia repairs - a systematic review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Surgical management and outcomes of complex lateral hernias: a specialized hernia center experience.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Risk factors for recurrence and surgical site infection after abdominal wall hernia repair: a systematic review and meta analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2019, approximately U$9.7 billion were invested in abdominal wall surgery in the United States. Opting for a biological mesh can increase the cost by more than $8000 per surgery when compared to a polypropylene mesh.
methodsThis meta-analysis evaluated controlled studies comparing biological and synthetic mesh in contaminated environments with the primary outcome being Surgical Site Infection (SSI) and assessing other outcomes such as hernia recurrence, re-admission or reoperation, mesh removal, surgical site occurrence, hospitalization length of stay. The systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases in accordance with the PRSIMA guidelines, searching for controlled studies comparing the use of biologic mesh against synthetic polypropylene mesh in patients with center of disease control infected site classification (CDC) class II or higher.
results1036 studies were found and 19 were selected for full-text review and 8 were included in the comparative analysis of outcomes. The systematic analysis indicated a higher risk of SSI development in patients with biological mesh compared to synthetic mesh (P = 0.03) with high heterogeneity with and higher risk of hernia recurrence (P < 0.0001). Also, no apparent benefit was found for the biological mesh group in terms of reoperation (P = 0.54) or mesh removal (P = 0.96), nor regarding surgical site occurrence (hematoma P = 0. 51; seroma P = 0.57) or intra-abdominal infection (P = 0.31).
conclusionThis study found no evidence of superiority for biological meshes over synthetic meshes in CDC Class II to IV contaminated environments regarding major postoperative complications following abdominal reconstruction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40473948What 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.