Trial reportHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
5-year clinical outcome of the ESTOIH trial comparing the short-bite versus large-bite technique for elective midline abdominal closure.
Trial report 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. It is linked to trial NCT01965249 (Short Stitch Versus Long Stitch Suture Technique Using Monomax® for Abdominal Wall Closure After Primary Median Laparotomy. A Randomized, Controlled, Double-blinded, Multicenter, International Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Short Stitch Versus Long Stitch Suture Technique Using Monomax® for Abdominal Wall Closure After Primary Median Laparotomy. A Randomized, Controlled, Double-blinded, Multicenter, International Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of the SUture BIte TEchnique on clinical outcomes after midline laparotomy closure: SUBITE-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Incisional Hernia After Liver Transplant: A Population-Level Retrospective Cohort Analysis.The Journal of surgical research · 2026Article
- Small-Bite Versus Large-Bite Closure for the Prevention of Incisional Hernia: A Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2026Review
- Small-bite versus conventional midline fascial closure in abdominal surgery: a prospective observational cohort study.BMC surgery · 2026Observational
- Intraoperative Fascial Traction - From Concept to Comprehensive Application.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe short-bite technique for fascial closure after midline laparotomy has been shown to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias one year postoperatively compared to the traditional large-bite technique. However, most studies evaluating this approach have been limited to a one-year follow-up period. Initiated in 2013, the ESTOIH trial is the only randomised controlled study to include both 3-year and 5-year follow-up data. The 3-year clinical outcomes have been previously published. Herein, we report for the first time the 5-year results regarding the incisional hernia rate using the small-bite technique compared to the large-bite technique for elective midline closure.
methodsThe ESTOIH study was designed as a prospective, multicentre, parallel, double-blind, randomised controlled study of primary elective midline closure. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either the small-bite or large-bite technique to close the fascia using an ultra-long-term, absorbable, elastic, monofilament suture named Monomax® based on poly-4-hydroxybutyrate. A planned 5-year follow-up was conducted, including ultrasound/radiological imaging to assess incisional hernia development as a key outcome parameter for the long-term effectiveness of the procedure.
resultsIn total, 362 patients were included in the 5-year ITT analysis (175 and 187 patients in the short-bite and large-bite groups, respectively). The incisional hernia rate increased in the short-bite group from 7.58% to 9.14% (p = 0.58) and in the large-bite group from 10.45% to 13.90% (p = 0.30) after 5 years compared to 3 years postoperatively. The incisional hernia rate in the short-stitch group was low, at 9.14% five years after surgery; however, the difference between the two treatment groups (short vs. long) was not significant at 5 years (OR 1.60, 95% CI [0.82-3.10]; p = 0.155).
conclusionThe previously observed increase in incisional hernias from 1 to 3 years postoperatively continued to 5 years in both stitch groups. The incisional hernia rate in the long-stitch group appeared to be higher at every time point than that in the short-stitch group. Using the short-bite technique in combination with an extra-long-term absorbable, elastic, monofilament poly-4-hydroxybutyrate suture, it may be possible to achieve a very low incisional hernia rate in the long-term follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRY: NCT01965249, registered October 18, 2013.
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.