Surgical endoscopy
October 15, 2026 · via Europe PMC
Comparison of medium-weight vs heavy-weight mesh in minimally invasive extraperitoneal ventral hernia repairs.
Siddiq A, Winder NM, Zheng X, Marks J, Lyons JL, Zolin SJ.
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
Medium-weight and heavyweight mesh gave comparable early and one-year outcomes in minimally invasive extraperitoneal ventral hernia repair.
What was studied
Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry data on adults with minimally invasive preperitoneal or retromuscular repair using medium-weight (40-60 g/m2) or heavyweight (over 75 g/m2) uncoated permanent synthetic mesh; 821 patients were identified and propensity matching left 238 (119 per group).
Key findings
- One-year pragmatic recurrence was similar (7.6% for medium-weight vs 12.6% for heavyweight; p = 0.196)
- No surgical site infections were documented at 30 days; surgical site occurrences (p = 0.696), those needing intervention (p = 0.498) and 30-day reoperation (p = 0.999) were similar
- Umbilical hernias were more often repaired with medium-weight mesh (80% vs 65%) and subxiphoid hernias with heavyweight (5.9% vs 15%)
Clinical relevance
Mesh weight may not be a major determinant of early outcomes in this setting, allowing selection based on other considerations.
Who should care
Limitations
Small matched sample may be underpowered for a recurrence difference; the hypothesis of fewer recurrences with heavyweight mesh was not supported but a numerically higher rate was seen. Retrospective with short follow-up.
No clear difference between medium-weight and heavyweight mesh at one year, with longer follow-up needed.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
Background
Minimally invasive (MIS) extraperitoneal ventral hernia repair (VHR) has become increasingly common, however, limited data exist comparing medium-weight (MW) versus heavyweight (HW) mesh in this setting. We hypothesized that HW mesh in this context would be associated with decreased rates of hernia recurrence at 1 year and beyond compared to MW mesh.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database, identifying adults who underwent MIS extraperitoneal (preperitoneal and/or retromuscular) VHR with either MW (40-60 g/m2) or HW (> 75 g/m2) uncoated permanent synthetic mesh from the inception of the registry to May 2025, with ≥1 year clinical or patient-reported follow-up. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline patient characteristics. The primary outcome was 1-year pragmatic hernia recurrence, defined as recurrence based on available elements of patient-reported, clinical and/or radiographic recurrence. Secondary outcomes included 30-day surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrences (SSO), surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI).
Results
821 patients were identified. After propensity score matching, 238 patients remained (119 MW, 119 HW). Most baseline covariates were well-matched. Patients with umbilical hernias were more likely to receive MW mesh (80% vs. 65%, p =0.009), while patients receiving HW mesh were more likely to have subxiphoid hernias (5.9% vs 15%, p =0.020). There were no documented SSI at 30 days. The rates of SSO (p =0.696), SSOPI (p =0.498), and 30-day reoperation (p =0.999) were similar between groups. At 1-year, pragmatic recurrence was similar between MW and HW patients (7.6% vs 12.6%, p =0.196).
Conclusions
MW and HW mesh demonstrate comparable early and mid-term outcomes following MIS extraperitoneal VHR. Further prospective study and long-term follow-up are necessary as these techniques proliferate.
DOI
10.1007/s00464-026-13476-z
PMID
42881310
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed