ArticleCureus2025
A Prospective Observational Study Comparing Retrorectus and Anterectus Mesh Placement in Incisional Hernia Repair.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association Between Mesh Placement and Recurrence and Chronic Pain After Incisional Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Incisional hernias are a frequent complication following abdominal surgeries, significantly contributing to morbidity. Surgical repair using mesh placement has become the standard of care, with ongoing debates regarding the optimal anatomical plane for mesh placement. Even though the retrorectus plane advocated by Rives and Stoppa has become the choice of plane for most surgeons, it is not without recurrence. This prospective observational study compares the outcomes of incisional hernia repair using anterectus versus retrorectus mesh placement techniques. Patients and methods A total of 60 patients were enrolled from April 1, 2022, to April 1, 2024, at NRI Medical College & General Hospital, Vijayawada, India, divided equally into two groups. Group A included patients who underwent retrorectus hernioplasty, while Group B had anterectus hernioplasty. Parameters evaluated include epidemiological data, defect size, content, mesh size, operative time, postoperative pain, drain output, postoperative complications, hospital stay, recovery time, and recurrence rates. Results Results demonstrated a statistically significant advantage of the retrorectus approach with reduced operative time (160 ± 16 min vs. 216 ± 28 min; p < 0.0001), lower postoperative pain scores, decreased drain output, shorter hospital stays (5.6 ± 0.6 days vs. 15.7 ± 6.6 days; p < 0.0001), and fewer wound complications after a mean follow-up period of (17.4 +/- 4.7) months in group A and (18.3+/- 4.7) months in group B. Neither group had recurrences during the follow-up period. Conclusions This study concludes that retrorectus hernioplasty is superior to anterectus hernioplasty with less postoperative morbidity, shorter hospital stays, and accelerated patient recovery.
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.