ReviewCureus2026
Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement Versus Primary Suture for Midline Laparotomy Closure: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incisional hernia remains a common postoperative complication following elective midline laparotomy. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement has been proposed to reduce hernia formation, although concerns regarding postoperative complications and variation in operative technique have limited routine adoption. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251172749). A comprehensive search identified RCTs comparing prophylactic mesh reinforcement with primary suture closure in elective midline laparotomy. The primary outcome was incisional hernia incidence at ≥12 months follow-up. Data were pooled using fixed-effects meta-analysis. Four RCTs comprising 1,006 patients met criteria for quantitative synthesis. Prophylactic mesh significantly reduced the incidence of incisional hernia compared with primary suture closure (relative risk (RR) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.57). Heterogeneity was moderate (I² = 44.6%). Observational studies supported similar trends without evidence of increased clinically significant wound morbidity. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement reduces the risk of incisional hernia following elective midline laparotomy without clear evidence of increased postoperative complications. Selective use in high-risk patients may improve long-term abdominal wall outcomes, although further standardized studies are warranted.
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.