SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Comparison of facial defect closure and non-fascial closure in ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential 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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) is widely used due to its minimally invasive benefits. However, traditional IPOM without fascial defect closure (FDC) has been associated with variable complications, prompting interest in techniques incorporating FDC, such as IPOM-plus and hybrid approaches. Ventral hernia repair remains a common surgical procedure, yet the optimal management of the FDC versus non-FDC remains controversial. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of these methods.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrials.gov up to September 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing fascial defect closure versus non-closure in LVHR were eligible. Pooled effect was calculated by Random-effect model with 95%CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultsThirteen RCTs, comprising a total of 1482 patients, were included. No significant difference was found between the FDC and the non-FDC in terms of diagnosis of recurrence radiologically (OR:0.69,95%CI: [0.33; 1.42], p = 0.3103) or clinically (OR:0.70,95%CI: [0.39; 1.26], p = 0.2357), or in diagnosis of seroma radiologically (OR:0.68,[0.33; 1.40], p = 0.2987) or clinically (OR:0.79, 95%CI: [0.49; 1.26], p = 0.3205). FDC was associated with longer operative time (MD:7.64,95%CI: [2.33; 12.95], p = 0.0048) and slightly higher postoperative pain (at day-1:SMD:0.36,95%CI: [0.07; 0.65]) and at day-2:SMD:0.31,95%CI: [0.05; 0.57], p = 0.0175). Secondary outcomes, including infection, mesh bulging, reoperation for recurrence, chronic pain, and quality of life, were also found to be statistically insignificant. Trial sequential analysis reinforced the inconclusiveness of the evidence and that additional trials are needed. LIMITATION: Despite we included only RCTs, the available evidence is limited by inadequate reporting of hernia defect size and insufficient follow-up durations, which restrict definitive recommendations for routine FDC.
conclusionFDC and non-FDC were comparable in terms of LVHR in recurrence and seroma rates. FDC was associated with longer operative time and post-operative pain. The current available evidence is insufficient to support the routine use of FDC, and further randomized trials are needed to explore its role and accurately identify patients who would benefit the most.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41790286What 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.