ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Efficacy of slowly absorbable versus permanent sutures in primary repair of umbilical hernias.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFor small primary umbilical hernias, suture-only repair remains common, yet there is limited comparative evidence guiding suture material selection. Our study compared the recurrence and complication rates of primary umbilical hernias using permanent or absorbable sutures.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC), a national, prospectively maintained hernia registry. Adults undergoing elective, open primary umbilical hernia repair without mesh between May 2014 and February 2024 with ≥ 1-year follow-up were included (N = 1,140). Patients were stratified by suture type: slowly absorbable (n = 500) versus permanent (n = 640). The primary endpoint was 1-year hernia recurrence; secondary endpoints included 30-day surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), readmission, reoperation, and patient-reported outcomes (HerQLes and PROMIS). Multivariable logistic and linear regression models adjusted for suture configuration, BMI, COPD, ascites, smoking, and diabetes.
resultsOne-year recurrence rates were similar between slowly absorbable and permanent suture repairs (6% vs. 5%; adjusted OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66-1.96; p = 0.65). Suture configuration, including figure-of-eight closure, was not associated with recurrence. There were no differences in 30-day SSI, SSO, readmission, or reoperation between groups. Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes (HerQLes and PROMIS pain scores) were comparable at both 30 days and 1 year.
conclusionsIn elective primary open umbilical hernia repair without mesh, suture material-slowly absorbable versus permanent-was not associated with differences in recurrence, wound morbidity, or patient-reported outcomes. These findings support surgeon discretion in suture selection and highlight the need for prospective randomized trials to define optimal closure strategies for small umbilical hernias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42118220What 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.