↓ Skip to main content

Prevention of Incisional Hernias with Biological Mesh: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prevention of Incisional Hernias with Biological Mesh: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00053
Pubmed ID
Authors

Filip E. Muysoms, An Jairam, Manuel López-Cano, Maciej Śmietański, Guido Woeste, Iris Kyle-Leinhase, Stavros A. Antoniou, Ferdinand Köckerling, BioMesh Study Group, Ferdinand Köckerling, Stavros Antoniou, René Fortelny, Frank A. Granderath, Markus Heiss, Franz Mayer, Marc Miserez, Agneta Montgomery, Salvador Morales-Conde, Filip Muysoms, Alexander Petter-Puchner, Rudolph Pointner, Neil Smart, Marciej Smietanski, Bernd Stechemesser

Abstract

Prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during closure of abdominal wall incisions has been proposed in patients with increased risk for development of incisional hernias (IHs). As part of the BioMesh consensus project, a systematic literature review has been performed to detect those studies where MAR was performed with a non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic). A computerized search was performed within 12 databases (Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, Pubmed publisher, Lilacs, Scielo, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google Scholar) with appropriate search terms. Qualitative evaluation was performed using the MINORS score for cohort studies and the Jadad score for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). For midline laparotomy incisions and stoma reversal wounds, two RCTs, two case-control studies, and two case series were identified. The studies were very heterogeneous in terms of mesh configuration (cross linked versus non-cross linked), mesh position (intraperitoneal versus retro-muscular versus onlay), surgical indication (gastric bypass versus aortic aneurysm), outcome results (effective versus non-effective). After qualitative assessment, we have to conclude that the level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of biological meshes for prevention of IHs is very low. No comparative studies were found comparing biological mesh with synthetic non-absorbable meshes for the prevention of IHs. There is no evidence supporting the use of non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic) for prevention of IHs when closing a laparotomy in high-risk patients or in stoma reversal wounds. There is no evidence that a non-permanent absorbable mesh should be preferred to synthetic non-absorbable mesh, both in clean or clean-contaminated surgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Other 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 46%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 17 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,472,072
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#927
of 2,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,215
of 322,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,907 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.