ArticleCureus2025
A Prospective Comparative Study of Preperitoneal vs. Retro-Rectus Mesh Placement in Ventral Hernia Repair at a Tertiary Care Hospital.
Article 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.
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.
- Women have more complications but better reported quality of life after elective ventral hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Ventral hernia repair commonly requires mesh reinforcement. Among various open approaches, preperitoneal and retro-rectus mesh placements are frequently practiced, but their comparative outcomes remain debated. Aim The aim of the study is to compare postoperative outcomes of preperitoneal versus retro-rectus mesh placement in open ventral hernia repair in a tertiary care hospital. Methods A prospective, randomized comparative study was conducted on 28 patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair. Patients were randomized using block randomization into two groups: Group A (preperitoneal mesh, n = 14) and Group B (retro-rectus mesh, n = 14). Postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, pain (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score), and post-surgical occupational downtime were assessed. All patients were followed up for one month postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test for categorical variables and the independent t-test for continuous variables, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results The retro-rectus mesh repair group demonstrated lower rates of seroma formation (one patient out of 14 patients vs. three patients out of 14 patients (7.14% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.042)) and surgical site infection (SSI; one patient out of 14 patients vs. two patients out of 14 patients (7.14% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.037)) compared to the preperitoneal group. The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the retro-rectus group (5.3 ± 1.1 days) than in the preperitoneal group (6.8 ± 1.4 days, p = 0.021). Post-surgical occupational downtime was also reduced (8.5 ± 2.1 days vs. 11.3 ± 2.5 days, p = 0.018). Conclusion Retro-rectus mesh repair offers lower postoperative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and faster recovery compared to preperitoneal repair, with comparable short-term outcomes at one-month follow-up. It may be considered the preferred approach in tertiary care 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.