Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40924212›Full record

Observational studyHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025

What is the preferred mesh placement in primary ventral hernia repair? An international survey of 442 surgeons.

Usamah Ahmed, Jacob Rosenberg, Sarfaraz Jalil Baig, Sujith Wijerathne, Wah Yang, Shuqing Li, Jason Joe Baker

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Usamah AhmedCenter for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, Herlev, DK-2730, Denmark. usamah.a@outlook.com.ORCID 0009-0002-8157-6791
Jacob RosenbergCenter for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, Herlev, DK-2730, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0063-1086
Sarfaraz Jalil BaigDigestive Surgery Clinic, 7B, St Francis Xavier Sarani, Mullick Bazar, Park Street area, Kolkata, 700017, West Bengal, India.ORCID 0000-0002-5966-1722
Sujith WijerathneDepartment of Surgery, Alexandra Hospital, 378 Alexandra Road, 159964, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-5613-9816
Wah YangDepartment of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, 510632, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2341-3310
Shuqing LiSchool of Clinical Medicine, Jiangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Mei Ling Da Dao No.1688, Nanchang, 330004, Jiangxi, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2069-9045
Jason Joe BakerCenter for Perioperative Optimization, Department of Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, Herlev, DK-2730, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9272-9637

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePrimary ventral hernia repair is a common elective procedure; however, mesh placement practices vary widely, and there is limited evidence to guide optimal placement. This international study examined surgeons' preferences and considerations regarding mesh placement in elective primary ventral hernia repair.

methodsWe conducted an international cross-sectional survey targeting surgeons experienced in primary ventral hernia repair. The survey was distributed through hernia societies and social media platforms. It included 31 questions addressing surgeon demographics and their beliefs on various mesh placements. Data were collected using REDCap, Google Forms, and Questionstar.

resultsA total of 442 surgeons participated, with the majority being specialist surgeons (96%) who had performed at least 100 repairs (82%). Inlay was the least familiar mesh technique (26%). For hernia defects < 1 cm, preperitoneal (28%) and suture-only repair (27%) were considered to yield the best overall outcomes. For defects ≥ 1 to ≤ 4 cm, preperitoneal and retromuscular techniques were equally favored (34%), whereas retromuscular was regarded as the best option for larger defects (> 4 to 9 cm; 68%). Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches were increasingly preferred for larger defect sizes. Hernia defect size (93%), surgical history (90%), and obesity (80%) were the most common factors influencing the choice of mesh placement.

conclusionPreperitoneal and suture-only repairs were most commonly selected for hernia defects < 1 cm, while preperitoneal and retromuscular placements were equally favored for defects ≥ 1 to ≤ 4 cm. For defects > 4 to 9 cm, retromuscular placement was selected by most surgeons. As defect width increased, laparoscopic and robot-assisted approaches gained preference. Key factors influencing decisions included hernia defect size, surgical history, and obesity. The lack of strong supporting evidence highlights the need for further high-quality research.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyPractice Patterns, Physicians'SurgeonsSurgical MeshAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeChronic painForeign body sensationPreperitonealRecurrenceRetromuscularVentral hernia

Identifiers

PMID40924212
PMCPMC12420699

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.