SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2026
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Fascial Defect Closure Versus Bridged Repair in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Mesh Repair.
Synthesis in World journal of 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study compares the outcomes in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair using intraperitoneal underlay mesh (IPUM) without facial defect closure versus intraperitoneal underlay mesh following fascial defect closure (IPUM+).
methodsTo search for randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of patients with ventral hernias who were managed surgically with either IPUM or IPUM+, standard medical databases such as MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were used, covering studies published up to and including September 2025. The meta-analysis was performed with a random effect model analysis, and all data was analyzed using Review Manager Software 5.4.
resultsFive randomized controlled trials (n = 549) were included, involving adult patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with IPUM or IPUM+. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in hernia recurrence (Risk Ratio [RR]: 0.82, 95% CI: [0.29, 2.27], p = 0.70), seroma formation (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: [0.32, 1.88], p = 0.58), operating times (Standard Mean Difference [SMD]: 0.26, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.69], p = 0.23) and pain scores (SMD: 0.26, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.69], p = 0.23) between the two approaches.
conclusionIPUM and IPUM+ are both associated with similar postoperative morbidities for the treatment of ventral hernia repair.
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.