ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Mesh placement and risk of reoperation for recurrence after incisional hernia repair: a nationwide register-based cohort study.
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. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocol for the mesh matters project: evaluating the efficacy of suture mesh vs. planar mesh in small ventral hernia repair - a randomized, blinded multicenter study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Trial
- Mesh placement and risk of reoperation for recurrence after incisional hernia repair. Authors reply.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Comment to: Mesh placement and risk of reoperation for recurrence after incisional hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRetromuscular mesh placement is recommended for incisional hernia repair, but the current certainty of evidence remains low. This study aimed to compare the risk of reoperation for recurrence among adults undergoing incisional hernia repair with onlay, retromuscular, preperitoneal, and intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM).
methodsThis study used prospectively collected data from the Danish Ventral Hernia Database that were linked to the Danish National Patient Register and the Danish Civil Registration System. We included patients undergoing elective incisional hernia repair with defect widths ≤ 10 cm operated between 2007 and 2025. The primary outcome was reoperation for recurrence, analyzed using Cox regression, and included subgroup analyses of defect width, surgical approach, and type of previous incision.
resultsIn total, 5,375 patients were included, of whom 14% received a preperitoneal mesh placement, 22% retromuscular placement, 30% IPOM with defect closure, and 34% onlay placement. Compared with preperitoneal placement, onlay was associated with a higher risk of reoperation (HR 2.62, 95% CI 1.73-3.95; p < 0.001). Onlay was associated with a higher risk than all other placements. However, this association was not observed in subgroup analyses for defect widths ≤ 2 cm (p = 0.058), in which retromuscular placement was associated with a significantly increased risk of reoperation.
conclusionOnlay mesh placement for defect widths > 2 cm and retromuscular mesh placement for defect widths ≤ 2 cm were associated with higher risk of reoperation for recurrence.
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.