SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Systematic review and meta-analysis of mesh versus suture repairs of small umbilical hernias (≤ 2 cm).
Synthesis 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpdated guidelines of approaches to small umbilical hernia repairs (UHRs) ≤ 2 cm defect size are inconclusive. Operations to resolve small UHRs remain high heterogeneous depending upon local guidelines and surgical expertise, therefore there is no clear optimal approach nor guideline. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate mesh versus suture methodological approaches in small UHR.
methodsSystematic search of four databases (EMBASE, PubMed, OVID, MEDLINE) retrieved relevant studies after screening, de-duplication, eligibility assessment and full-text analyses were conducted. Descriptive and numerical analysis was achieved for each included study in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Risk of bias assessment was achieved using Cochrane risk of bias methodologies (Risk of bias in non-randomised studies, ROBINS-I; Risk of bias tool, RoB-2). Primary outcome assessed was recurrence; secondary outcomes included haematoma, bleeding, infection, systemic complications and patient-reported pain scores.
resultsMesh approaches to UHRs resulted in fewer recurrence rates postoperatively in variable follow-up periods (RR 0.46 (95% CI 0.38-0.55, I
conclusionMesh-based small UHRs offers superior outcomes for short and long-term recurrence rates, although increased risk of bleeding and infection. Subgroup analyses of mesh repairs revealed merit for onlay approaches for recurrence although analysis is limited by heterogeneous study design. No significant difference in recurrence risk with choice of suture material was found. Symptomatic burden and quality-of-life detriments were not significantly higher in mesh group therefore authors contend for greater adoption of mesh-based approaches in small UHRs. Further RCTs specifically investigating small UHRs are encouraged to establish long-term adverse consequences, and longitudinal patient-reported outcome measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42905349What 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.