SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Is mesh fixation necessary in open retromuscular ventral hernia repair? A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2026. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRetromuscular ventral hernia repair (RVHR) is a well-established and increasingly popular technique for mesh placement, offering favorable recurrence and complication rates. However, the role of mesh fixation in RVHR remains unclear, as some have questioned its effect on reducing recurrence and could potentially increase postoperative morbidity. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes of RVHR with and without mesh fixation. METHODOLOGY: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched through July 2025. Eligible studies included adult patients undergoing open RVHR with or without fixation. Primary outcomes were hernia recurrence and postoperative pain; secondary outcomes included hematoma, seroma, surgical site infection (SSI), reoperation, operative time, length of stay (LOS), and quality of life. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. Random-effects models were used, and heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic.
resultsSix studies (15,106 patients; 3,994 without fixation) met inclusion criteria: two randomized controlled trials and four observational cohorts, including one registry study. Recurrence did not differ between fixation and non-fixation (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.91-1.34; I2 = 0%). Fixation was associated with significantly worse quality-of-life scores (MD -12.71, 95% CI -16.48 to -8.93; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and higher hematoma risk (OR 5.18, 95% CI 1.18-22.68; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%). No significant differences were found for pain, SSI, seroma, reoperation, LOS, or operative time.
conclusionOur systematic review and meta-analysis identified no difference in recurrence, pain, SSI, or long-term outcomes between mesh fixation and non-fixation in RVHR. However, fixation was associated with significantly worse quality-of-life scores and a higher risk of hematoma. These findings suggest a selective rather than routine use of mesh fixation in RVHR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41543744What 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.