ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Mesh placement and patient-reported outcomes in primary ventral hernia repair: a nationwide survey- and register-based study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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.
- Mesh placement and patient-reported outcomes in primary ventral hernia repair: a nationwide survey- and register-based study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
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
backgroundMesh repair reduces recurrence risk, but evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) across mesh placements remains limited. This study aimed to investigate the association between mesh placement and PROs in primary ventral hernia repair, and secondarily the prevalence of severe chronic pain and foreign body sensation.
methodsThis nationwide survey- and register-based study, part of the AFTERHERNIA project in Denmark, linked electronic survey responses with operative data from the Danish Ventral Hernia Database. Adults (≥ 18 years) who underwent elective primary (umbilical or epigastric) ventral hernia repair with mesh between January 1, 2014, and March 31, 2024, were included, limited to defects < 10 cm. PROs were assessed using the validated, ventral hernia-specific Abdominal Hernia-Q (AHQ) questionnaire.
resultsOut of 13,327 eligible patients, 10,869 (82%) responded (median age, 54 years; 71% male). Compared with onlay, preperitoneal repair had a better AHQ sum score (58.7 vs 57.7; mean difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.2; P < .001), lower prevalence of severe chronic pain (8.7% vs 11.3%; difference, -2.6%; 95% CI, -4.0% to -1.2%; P < .001), and lower prevalence of foreign body sensation (20.1% vs 23.9%; difference, -3.8%; 95% CI, -5.7% to -1.8%; P < .001). Findings were consistent across subgroups and sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsPROs were generally good across mesh placements. Preperitoneal mesh placement was associated with slightly better PROs compared with other placements, although the difference was small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. However, it was associated with a lower prevalence of severe chronic pain and foreign body sensation compared with onlay and intraperitoneal mesh.
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.