ReviewCureus2025
Mending the Gap: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mesh Reinforcement for Abdominal Wall Closure in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Repair.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incisional hernias are a common complication following abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, leading to significant morbidity, higher healthcare costs, and reduced quality of life. While mesh reinforcement is widely used in abdominal surgery, its role in AAA repair remains uncertain due to limited evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ongoing concerns about postoperative complications such as infection and seroma formation. A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of mesh for primary abdominal wall closure post-AAA repair. Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), National Health Service (NHS) National Electronic Library for Health, and PubMed, with no restrictions on date, language, or publication status. Primary outcomes included incisional hernia rates, reoperation rates, infection rates, and seroma formation rates. Statistical analyses utilised random-effects models, reporting odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Mesh reinforcement significantly reduced the risk of incisional hernias by 87% (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.04-0.46; p=0.001). However, seroma formation was over seven times more likely in the mesh group (OR: 7.13; 95% CI: 1.74-29.28; p=0.006). Infection rates were comparable (OR: 2.59; 95% CI: 0.30-22.24; p=0.39), while reoperation rates were lower but not statistically significant (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.21-2.43; p=0.6). Mesh reinforcement provides a clear benefit in significantly reducing incisional hernias post-AAA repair but increases seroma risk. Surgical decision-making should weigh these benefits against the potential harms. Future research should not only assess long-term outcomes but also establish the optimal mesh material, placement technique, and patient selection criteria to maximise benefits while minimising complications.
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.