ReviewHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Hernia mesh repair in immunocompromised patients: a comprehensive review.
Review 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.
- Minimally invasive, robotic-assisted resection of abdominal wall tumors: a case series.Frontiers in surgery · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe management of hernia in immunocompromised patients remains a distinct surgical challenge, characterized by complex risk profiles, heightened susceptibility to infectious complications, and ambiguous consensus on optimal mesh selection and perioperative protocols. As the prevalence of immunosuppression continues to rise due to increasing organ transplant rates, autoimmune diseases, oncological therapies, and advanced age, understanding the nuances of mesh repair in this population is of paramount importance.
methodsThis review synthesizes current evidence on the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of hernia mesh repair in immunocompromised adults, traversing mesh materials, infection mitigation strategies, surgical techniques, recurrence and complication rates, patient-reported outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and future research imperatives.
resultsAdvanced mesh materials-particularly long-acting resorbable meshes-show superior long-term durability but at elevated cost. The risk for mesh infection and recurrence is proportionate to immunosuppression burden, comorbidities, and operative field contamination. Notably, modern synthetic meshes, when coupled with stringent perioperative infection control and risk-mitigation strategies, offer durable repair with acceptable safety profiles, even in immunocompromised hosts.
conclusionThere is insufficient evidence to support routine use of biologic mesh, except in select contaminated fields. Patient-reported metrics are increasingly recognized as essential for outcome assessment, though standardization remains incomplete. Cost-effectiveness favors synthetics unless contamination risks predominate or patient preference dictates otherwise. Gaps include inconsistent immunocompromised patient definitions, limited long-term data, and lack of tailored guidelines. Prospective, multicenter studies integrating real-world patient-reported and economic data are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41652060What 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.