ReviewJournal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS2026
Efficacy and Safety of Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for the Prevention of Incisional Hernia: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses.
Review in Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS, 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.
- Efficacy and Safety of Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for the Prevention of Incisional Hernia: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Incisional hernia (IH) is a frequent and expensive complication of laparotomy, occurring in up to 50% of high-risk patients. Although prophylactic mesh placement has been proposed as an effective preventive strategy of IH, its adoption remains limited due to concerns about mesh-related complications and the heterogeneity and variable quality of the available evidence. This umbrella meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the existing evidence to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic mesh reinforcement for IH prevention. Methods: A systematic search of multiple databases was performed until June 2025 to identify meta-analyses comparing the use of prophylactic meshes versus primary closure in adults undergoing laparotomy. Methodological quality was assessed with the AMSTAR-2, and the data were reanalyzed with random or fixed effects models. Heterogeneity (I Results: Twenty-one meta-analyses were included. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of incisional hernia (OR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.22-0.38); this effect was consistent across different surgical settings. Mesh use was also associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.04-1.30) and seroma formation (OR = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.99-2.67). No significant differences were observed in abdominal wound dehiscence or hematoma. Overall, the evidence demonstrated a large and consistent effect, although substantial heterogeneity and signs of publication bias were present. Conclusion: Prophylactic mesh reinforcement is associated with a reduced likelihood of incisional hernia but an increased risk of seroma and surgical site infection. Its use should be considered selectively in high-risk patients, balancing potential benefits against known complications. Further studies are needed to optimize patient selection and evaluate strategies to reduce mesh-related adverse outcomes, as well as to assess cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes.
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.