ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Comparative clinical efficacy of IPOM and TES in treating midline ventral hernias: a multicenter retrospective 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. 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
To systematically compare the clinical outcomes of intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair versus total endoscopic sublay (TES) repair for midline ventral hernias, and to provide evidence for surgical decision-making. A multicenter retrospective cohort study enrolled 398 patients (IPOM = 238, TES = 160) from three tertiary hospitals (2021-2026). Baseline, perioperative, and prognostic data were compared. Baseline characteristics were similar. IPOM had greater intraoperative blood loss (20.0 vs. 10.0 mL, P < 0.001) but lower peritoneal tear (2.5% vs. 13.8%, P < 0.001) and vascular injury (1.7% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.015). Postoperatively, IPOM showed less seroma (0% vs. 6.9%, P < 0.001) but more intestinal obstruction (9.2% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.003). Total costs were higher in IPOM (¥23,800 vs. ¥16,990, P < 0.001). Chronic pain was 0% in both. TES provided better acute pain control (24‑h VAS: 1.0 vs. 4.0, P < 0.001), better 12‑month quality of life (EuraHS‑QoL: 2.0 vs. 4.0, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (4.0 vs. 4.0 days, P < 0.001; median equal but significant due to distribution). Recurrence at 12 months was not significantly different (3.4% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.107). IPOM and TES offer distinct complementary advantages. IPOM had a numerically lower recurrence rate, whereas TES favored faster recovery and lower costs. Choice should be individualized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42622921What 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.