Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40607178›Full record

ReviewJournal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS2025

Laparosocpic "Intraperitoneal Underlay Mesh"-Plus: A Viable Approach for Incisional-Ventral Hernia Repair.

Elie Chelala, Brian Jacob

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

2 authors.

Elie ChelalaBelgian Section of Abdominal Wall Surgery Chirec/Delta-Hospital, Departement of Digestive & Bariatric Surgery, Brussels, Belgium.
Brian JacobInternational Hernia Collaboration, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, NYC Partner, Laparoscopic Surgical Center of New York, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current Intraperitoneal Underlay Mesh (IPUM), previously referred to as IPOM (onlay), initially faced several challenges due to design and methodological shortcomings, particularly with the use of a bridging technique without defect closure. These limitations contributed to elevated recurrence rates, mesh bulging, seroma formation, and suboptimal abdominal wall function. Although complications such as adhesions, bowel erosion, fistula formation, and mesh migration were rare, they were mostly associated with non-composite or poorly designed meshes and inadequate fixation. These concerns led to growing skepticism regarding intraperitoneal mesh placement and a shift in preference toward retrorectus mesh positioning. Since 2007, the evolution of IPUM+ techniques-where the "+" denotes primary defect closure combined with the use of advanced composite meshes, has led to significantly improved outcomes. Long-term studies, meta-analyses, and randomized trials have demonstrated better functional results, reduced complications, and broader acceptance among surgeons and patients. These advancements have positioned IPUM+ as a reliable and effective option, especially when long-term outcomes of alternative techniques such as eTEP, ventral TAPP, or robotic approaches remain under long term follow up evaluation. IPUM+ continues to serve as a valuable technique for small to moderate or recurrent ventral hernias when performed by experienced surgeons. Future directions should aim to define its role in personalized hernia care, integrating hybrid methods and emerging technologies for complex repairs.

Indexed as

augmentation techniqueincisional ventral hernia repairintraperitoneal onlay meshlaparoscopic IPUM+ventral hernia repair

Identifiers

PMID40607178
PMCPMC12213473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.