Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41171466›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025

Absorbable mesh is associated with a higher risk of recurrence and reoperation: a propensity score-matched comparison of mesh performance in clean and contaminated ventral hernia repairs.

Sahil Patel, Priscilla H Chan, Brandon Cowan, Heather A Prentice, Kenneth Sucher, Elizabeth W Paxton, Elliott Brill, Robert Bell, Rouzbeh Mostaedi

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

9 authors.

Sahil PatelUniversity of California at San Francisco, East Bay General Surgery, Oakland, CA, USA.
Priscilla H ChanMedical Device Surveillance & Assessment, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego, CA, USA.
Brandon CowanUniversity of California at San Francisco, East Bay General Surgery, Oakland, CA, USA.
Heather A PrenticeMedical Device Surveillance & Assessment, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego, CA, USA.
Kenneth SucherMedical Device Surveillance & Assessment, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego, CA, USA.
Elizabeth W PaxtonMedical Device Surveillance & Assessment, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego, CA, USA.
Elliott BrillDepartment of Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Robert BellDepartment of Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group, Antioch, CA, USA.
Rouzbeh MostaediDepartment of Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group, Richmond, CA, USA. rouzbeh.mostaedi@kp.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare long-term recurrence and reoperation outcomes in ventral hernia repairs (VHR) and abdominal wall reconstructions (AWR) using absorbable mesh (AM: synthetic and biologic) versus permanent mesh (PM) across CDC wound class 1-4.

methodsAdult patients who underwent first-time elective VHR or AWR with mesh were identified using Kaiser Permanente's integrated electronic health record (2010-2023). PM repairs were 1:1 propensity score-matched to AM repairs. Cumulative incidence via the Kaplan-Meier estimate and multivariable Cox regression were used to evaluate risk for hernia recurrence and reoperation for recurrence; secondary analysis evaluated outcomes by wound class 1, 2, and 3/4.

resultsAmong 24,822 VHR and 1,341 AWR, AM were used in 1,330 (5.4%) VHR and 290 (21.6%) AWR. After matching, the 10-year cumulative recurrence was 33.7% for VHR with AM versus 25.3% for PM and AM was associated with a higher risk of recurrence (HR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.19-1.64) and reoperation (HR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.28-2.56) versus PM. In VHR subset analysis, AM associated with a higher recurrence risk in wound class 1 (HR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.21-1.94) and wound class 3/4 (HR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.08-4.94) and reoperation risk in wound class 1 (HR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.01-2.70) and wound class 2 (HR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.01-3.06). Synthetic and biologic AM each had higher recurrence versus PM; biologic AM also had higher reoperation. For AWR, no differences were observed at 6 years.

conclusionIn this large, long-term propensity-matched cohort, AM for VHR was associated with higher recurrence and reoperation risk than PM, including in contaminated fields.

Indexed as

Absorbable ImplantsHernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyReoperationSurgical MeshSurgical Wound InfectionAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesAbdominal wall reconstructionAbsorbable meshBiologic meshPermanent meshVentral hernia repairWound class

Identifiers

PMID41171466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.