ReviewCureus2025
A Meta-Analysis Comparing Sublay and Onlay Mesh Repair in Incisional Hernia Surgery Based on Surgical Outcomes.
Review 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.
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
Incisional hernia is a common surgical complication that often requires mesh-based repair. Among the various techniques, sublay (retrorectus) and onlay mesh placements are frequently employed, but their relative effectiveness in terms of surgical outcomes remains debated. This meta-analysis aimed to compare sublay and onlay mesh repair techniques in incisional hernia surgery based on key postoperative outcomes. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, ProQuest, and Google Scholar for studies published in English between January 2010 and March 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and prospective comparative studies directly comparing sublay and onlay mesh repair techniques and reporting on at least one predefined surgical outcome. Six studies involving a total of 468 patients were included in the analysis. Primary outcomes assessed included hernia recurrence, postoperative complications, surgical site infection (SSI), and seroma formation. Secondary outcomes included operative time and length of hospital stay. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model with odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) reported along with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The meta-analysis revealed that sublay mesh repair was consistently associated with lower hernia recurrence rates, though the differences did not reach a statistical significance. Sublay repair also demonstrated significantly fewer postoperative complications in multiple studies, particularly in terms of reduced seroma formation and SSI. Furthermore, hospital stay was significantly shorter in the sublay group in two of the three studies reporting this outcome. Onlay repair, however, was associated with a shorter operative time. In conclusion, sublay mesh repair offers superior outcomes in terms of recurrence, complications, seroma, and hospital stay, suggesting it as the preferred approach for incisional hernia repair in appropriate clinical settings.
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.