Ventral and Incisional Hernia (Surgical) — Closure and Prophylactic-Mesh Prevention, EHS Classification, Sublay Doctrine, TAR Arithmetic, MIS Selection, Emergency Repair and Patient-Reported Outcomes

Definition and guideline frame — closure, trocar sites, primary ventral disease

The EHS/AHS closure update sets the prevention frame for every elective midline laparotomy: a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested, and prophylactic mesh augmentation with a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position can be considered to reduce incisional hernia risk — drawn from 39 papers over seven key questions, with weak recommendations throughout.^[1] The same guideline closes the trocar loophole: suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus.^[1] Set the background denominator from the prospective lap-versus-open era: an incisional hernia develops in 3% to 13% of laparotomy incisions.^[4]

Primary ventral disease has its own doctrine. The EHS/AHS umbilical and epigastric guideline makes mesh the main recommendation to reduce recurrence, delivered by open preperitoneal flat mesh in most cases — reserving laparoscopy for large defects or patients with increased wound-morbidity risk.^[2] Special circumstances deviate honestly: preperitoneal mesh repair is suggested in cirrhosis or dialysis, repair waits until after the last pregnancy because subsequent pregnancy is a recurrence risk factor, and concomitant rectus diastasis or Spigelian and lumbar hernias carry no treatment recommendation for lack of evidence.^[3]

Incidence — whose abdomen herniates and how often

Quote denominators by context, never one blended rate. After trauma laparotomy, 3,127 of 35,666 patients (8.8%) developed incisional hernia across six US states — the population base for counselling and prevention planning.^[5] After open hepatectomy for colorectal metastases the curve is far steeper: among 470 patients, IH rates at 12, 24, and 60 months were 41.5%, 51.0%, and 59.2%, with surgical site infection (HR 1.54) and BMI above 25 (HR 1.94) as the independent drivers.^[6] Stoma closure is its own high-risk operation: hernias occurred in 23.9% of patients (32/134) after temporary ileostomy closure for colorectal malignancy.^[7] And the umbilical trocar site deserves respect: 57 of 241 patients (25.9%) developed trocar-site hernia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, with incision enlargement (OR 14.17), wound infection (OR 5.62), diabetes (OR 2.79) and obesity (OR 2.71) as the multivariate predictors.^[8]

Risk factors — the SSI and BMI core with registry multipliers

The NSQIP prediction model across 25,172 ventral/incisional repairs names the SSI core: BMI ≥30, smoking, ASA class 3, open surgical approach, prolonged operative times, and inpatient admission.^[9] The Bronx single-centre replication (3,936 repairs, 37.4% laparoscopic) found SSI in 101 patients (2.6%), with emergent surgery (aOR 2.57), BMI above 35 (aOR 2.38), insulin-dependent diabetes (aOR 2.36) and incisional hernia type (aOR 1.81) as the independent risks.^[10] Herniamed scales the lesson to 22,895 elective incisional repairs: higher EHS width classification, open procedure, female gender and preoperative pain carry a highly significant association with unfavorable outcome — while recurrence specifically answers to higher EHS width, higher BMI and lateral EHS classification.^[11] Optimization doctrine is honest about its limits: smoking, diabetes, obesity, cirrhosis and frailty raise postoperative complications, with prehabilitation strategies only variably associated with improvement.^[57]

Classification — EHS width that predicts, VHWG grade that triages, tools that fail

The EHS system earns its place by prediction, not by committee. In 2,385 ventral repairs, 27.5% suffered adverse events including major SSIs (5.7%), hernia recurrences (12.1%), and abdominal reoperations (9.7%) — with incisional type and larger hernia width independently associated with adverse events on multivariable analysis.^[12] The 2010 VHWG proposal complements it: a novel grading system on patient-plus-wound risk characteristics to select technique, material and approach, with high-quality data behind universal prosthetic reinforcement.^[13] Then fence the bedside calculators: in 101 retrorectus polypropylene midline repairs, neither the Carolinas Equation (B = 1.45, P = 0.61) nor VHWG and modified-VHWG grades predicted wound complications — current risk tools overemphasize patient factors and ignore technique.^[14] The closure-prediction corollary: tension-free fascial closure was achieved in 90 of 108 reconstructions (83%), EHS class M1 predicted failure (AUC 0.70, OR 7.0 versus M3), and linear rectus-separation measures (AUC 0.73-0.77) beat every 3D volumetric measure (all AUC below 0.70).^[30]

Prevention I — small bites, suture-to-wound ratio, and the Hughes fence

STITCH is the closure trial to quote exactly: 57 of 277 large-bites patients (21%) versus 35 of 268 small-bites patients (13%) herniated at 1 year (adjusted OR 0.52) — with 45 versus 25 stitches, a suture-to-wound ratio of 5.0 versus 4.3, and 14 versus 10 minutes of closure time, and no difference in adverse events.^[15] The 7-RCT meta-analysis (2,299 patients) extends it: small bites cut VIH (RR 0.46) and SSI (RR 0.73) with 1.03 fewer hospital days and no difference in mortality, burst abdomen, leak or ileus.^[16] The 6:1 short-stitch cohort is compatible but observational: mean SL/WL 6.62 midline versus 4.3 transverse, with abdominal-wall dehiscence in 22 of 351 patients (6.3%) — twice as common after emergency surgery (12.7 vs 5.1%).^[17] State the Hughes fence without hedging: 12 Hughes versus 17 continuous closures in emergency laparotomy, burst abdomen 25% versus 41.1% (p = 0.367, not significant) — a pilot signal only, never a doctrine.^[18]

Prevention II — prophylactic mesh: PRIMA, PRIMAAT, pooled honesty and the seroma price

PRIMA randomized 480 high-risk patients (aneurysm or BMI ≥27): at 2 years, 33 of 107 suture patients (30%) versus 25 of 188 onlay (13%) versus 34 of 185 sublay (18%) herniated (onlay OR 0.37) — with seromas in 34 of 188 onlay patients and no wound-infection difference.^[19] Long-term follow-up hardens the verdict: 5-year hernia rates 53.4% suture versus 24.7% onlay versus 29.8% sublay (onlay HR 0.390, sublay HR 0.485).^[20] The aneurysm extreme is PRIMAAT: cumulative incidence 32.9% at 24 months and 49.2% at 60 months without mesh, with no hernias diagnosed in the mesh group.^[25] Two single-centre RCTs agree: 2 of 80 versus 30 of 80 (12-month 1.5% vs 35.9%) with onlay mesh, and emergency onlay mesh cutting 1-year hernia from 27.4% to 4% (p = 0.001).^[26][27]

Pooled honesty tempers the enthusiasm without reversing it: 12-RCT meta-analysis gives RR 0.35 for PMR versus suture, the 14-RCT update gives 13.4% versus 27.5% (RR 0.38), and the bias-adjusted analysis settles at RR 0.52 — against onlay seroma RR 2.23 (and 2.05 in the update) with no SSI increase, and SSO OR 1.21 without statistical significance.^{[22][23][24][28]} Price the long tail with PRIMA reoperations: mesh explantation for complications ran 4 of 127 (3.1%) after onlay versus 0 of 115 after retrorectus mesh, with overall mesh removal in 10 of 127 (7.9%) onlay versus 7 of 115 (6.1%) retrorectus patients.^[21]

Imaging and planning — CT reporting, volumetry and size-driven decisions

Preoperative CT is the planning instrument for complex disease: defect measurement, muscle-quality evaluation, prior-repair evidence, domain-loss calculations and the rectus-defect ratio — the reporting review's checklist for every complex-ventral scan.^[29] Three-dimensional analysis of 1,178 open repairs converts size into decisions: the hernia principal component drives panniculectomy (OR 1.52) and component separation (OR 1.34), works against fascial closure (OR 0.78), and raises reoperation, readmission and wound complications (OR 1.18).^[31] One technical fence belongs in consent and planning alike: at 1 year the implanted mesh area decreased by 4.4% after laparoscopic versus 0.5% after open repair (from 300 vs 240 cm² implants) — small, technique-dependent shrinkage that underwrites generous overlap rather than exact-fit meshes.^[36]

Mesh position and overlap — sublay doctrine with honest Cochrane limits

Position matters and the VA data say so plainly: among 1,346 elective repairs with 383 recurrences (28.5%), 23 mesh removals (1.7%) and 7 fistulas (0.5%), laparoscopic (HR 0.49) and open underlay mesh (HR 0.72) substantially reduced recurrence versus suture — but onlay or inlay mesh did not.^[32] The RCT meta-analysis sets the bedside trade: mesh in clean cases cuts recurrence (NNT 7.9) at an SSI price (NNH 27.8), with sublay possibly beating onlay and underlay for both endpoints.^[33] The 2008 Cochrane review (1,141 patients) keeps the doctrine honest: recurrence ran more frequent but wound infection less frequent with suture versus mesh, and onlay versus sublay showed no recurrence difference with shorter onlay operating time.^[34] Then quote the overlap rule against real-world compliance: EHS/AHS demand ≥2 cm for sub-centimetre open hernias, ≥3 cm for 1-4-cm open hernias, and ≥5 cm for larger open and all laparoscopic repairs — yet only 1,074 of 4,178 registry repairs (25.7%) comply.^[35] The compliance gap has teeth: estimated mesh-defect overlap below 7 cm independently predicts recurrence.^[60]

Open reconstruction — Rives-Stoppa, component separation and TAR arithmetic

The open doctrine is posterior and wide: posterior component separation with transversus abdominis release to work beyond the retrorectus space, tension-free midline fascial closure, and wide sublay overlap.^[41] TAR's arc runs from case series to pooled evidence: Novitsky's original 42 massive defects with 2 recurrences (4.7%) at median 26.1 months, scaled to 22 studies and 4,910 open-TAR patients (394 cm² defects, 1,065 cm² meshes) with 6% recurrence against 34% morbidity, 22% SSO, 11% SSI, 4% SSOPI, 6% major morbidity and 1% mortality.^[37][38] The 50-repair long-term series sits inside that envelope: 4% recurrence at 28.2 months with 24% 30-day morbidity, 16% SSI and significant QoL improvement.^[39] The retromuscular long game is Swedish: 301 Rives-Stoppa midline repairs with 8.1% overall recurrence, 1.4% mesh infections without removals, and 80% satisfaction — dissatisfaction coming from recurrence and chronic pain.^[40]

Laparoscopic IPOM — seroma control, fixation equivalence and the pain fence

Peritoneal bridging earns its place on imaging: the 112-patient RCT cut 1-month seroma volume from 17 to 0 cm³ (P = 0.013) with no difference in early pain (P = 0.447) or recurrence (P = 0.684).^[46] The 10-year lap-versus-open extension (85 patients, defects to 15 cm) finds no difference between arms: recurrence 21.01%, reoperation 11.92% and death 24.88% per 10 person-years — with 62% of recurrences inside the first 2 years, so early equivalence is not lifetime equivalence.^[42] Fixation is equivalence with one exception: the 5-RCT meta-analysis (466 patients) finds tacks versus sutures equivalent for chronic pain (OR 1.24), pain scores, seroma/haematoma, recurrence and stay — buying only 19.25 fewer operative minutes — anchored by the 10-trial Cochrane (787 patients) doctrine that mesh lowers recurrence.^[47][48] The exception is fascial sutures: the Swiss prospective cohort (361 patients) found suture-to-fascia fixation raised 36-month pain to 32.8% versus 15.7% (p = 0.025) — omit fascial sutures where the repair allows.^[49]

eTEP and robotics — retromuscular MIS numbers without hype

Minimally invasive eTEP pools cleanly: 918 patients with 0% SSI, 5% seroma, 1% major (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) complications, 2% intraoperative complications, 1.0% conversions, 1.77-day stays and 1% recurrence — at a median 6.6 months, so strictly short-term evidence.^[44] Robotics versus laparoscopic IPOM is now randomised (3 RCTs, 236 patients): robotics costs 62.60 extra minutes with no difference in complications, stay, readmission, reoperation, conversion or 12-24-month recurrence (OR 0.97).^[45] The 34-study network (3,779 patients) replicates the pattern: no recurrence, seroma or haematoma difference between approaches — laparoscopy cuts stay by 2.24 days and wound infection (RR 0.29) versus open, while robotics adds 49.08 minutes.^[43] The selection rule that follows: approach changes wound and time arithmetic, not recurrence — choose by defect size, contamination, prior mesh and patient risk, never by platform loyalty.

Recurrence — the suture-versus-mesh gulf, the time curve and the predictor catalogue

The gulf is generational: 10-year cumulative recurrence 63% suture versus 32% mesh (67% vs 17% in small hernias) — with mesh causing less abdominal pain and no more complications.^[58] Denmark nationalises it: among 3,242 elective repairs, the need for re-repair ran 12.3% open mesh and 10.6% laparoscopic mesh versus 17.1% nonmesh — against 5-year mesh-complication incidence of 5.6% open and 3.7% laparoscopic.^[59] The time curve keeps rising: 6%, 8%, 11% and 12% at 2, 5, 10 and 15 years in 271 open mesh repairs — driven by obesity and overlap below 7 cm, with bridged repair exonerated — while 78.7% reported no discomfort and 89.0% were satisfied at median 13.6 years.^[60] The predictor catalogue is exhaustive and honestly weak: 274 studies implicate female sex, age ≤65, BMI bands, smoking, diabetes, COPD, ASA III-IV, steroids, incisional and recurrent type, and operative/postoperative variables — yet only 66 of 274 studies (24.1%) even defined recurrence, across 41 unstandardized definitions.^[62] Frame the field with ACHQC: recurrence ranges 30-80% across 29,834 mesh and 5,599 no-mesh patients.^[61]

Wound morbidity and optimization — score it, then earn closure in loss of domain

Score every complex repair: the Hopkins system (362 open repairs, 30-day SSO 18.5% and SSI 10%) predicts SSO at 9.7%, 19.4%, 29.1% and 38.8% for 1-4 points (AUC 0.73) from ASA ≥3, ≥4-hour operations and no wound vac — and SSI at 12.5% and 25% for 1-2 points (AUC 0.71).^[63] Loss of domain is earned closure, not forced closure: the BTX-plus-pneumoperitoneum review (217 patients) reports a 7.6% VIH/VAC reduction with only 18.4% needing PCS or TAR, SSI 17.5%, SSO 26.2% and 5.9% recurrence — against PPP complications in 25.6%.^[53] The first-100 series concurs: a 15% VIH/VAC reduction on CT, 97% complete fascial closure with bridging in only three cases, and 8% recurrence.^[54] The honest negative: adding botox to pneumoperitoneum raised abdominal-cavity volume 55% either way with complete closure in all patients — preparation works, the adjunct's added value is unproven.^[55] The sandwich-technique fence closes the section: 21 loss-of-domain repairs with two recurrences (18%) in the giant group — small numbers, technique description, no comparative claim.^[56]

Emergency — mesh wins recurrences, laparoscopy holds its own

The emergent verdict favours mesh: among 94 emergent/urgent repairs, no-mesh recurrence ran 24.5% versus 7.3% with mesh (p = 0.03) with no wound-complication difference.^[50] Umbilical emergencies extend it nationally: across 639 Danish patients (70.6% mesh), 5-year reoperation for recurrence was 1.7% with mesh versus 4.7% with suture (HR 0.32).^[52] Laparoscopy in incarcerated and strangulated disease is now routine and rising — 39.9% to 46.3% between eras — with no change in surgical or medical complications, reoperation or readmission, shorter stays against longer operations.^[51] The prevention corollary belongs in the emergency consent: onlay mesh in emergency laparotomy cut 1-year hernia from 27.4% to 4% (p = 0.001) — with more Clavien-Dindo 3A events in contaminated mesh cases, a benefit with a contamination asterisk.^[27]

Primary ventral specifics and the patient-reported bottom line

The threshold that changed practice: mesh above 1-cm defects instead of the old 2-cm line — with umbilical hernias affecting approximately 2% of the population.^[65] The compatible technique note is Swedish: 80 umbilical hernias ≤2 cm repaired with standardized 4×4-cm onlay mesh, with 4 surgical-site complications.^[64] The instrument that now judges every repair is HerQLes: 12 questions with reliability 0.86 and significant 6-month improvement after repair.^[66] Its MCID is 15.6 points: mean 1-year score 74.9 across 1,817 patients, with wider hernias and higher ASA class more likely to exceed it.^[67] Wound events — not any complication — cost quality of life: SSI (71 vs 83) and SSOPI (68 vs 78) lower 1-year HerQLes while non-wound events do not — and across 17,796 matched patients, each 10-point HerQLes gain tracks 3% less SSI and 4% less SSO odds.^[68][69]

Revision summary

Close small (5:1 ratio, slowly absorbable, continuous) per STITCH and the closure guideline^[15][1]; reinforce the high-risk midline (onlay or retromuscular permanent synthetic mesh) with 30%-to-13% 2-year and 53.4%-to-24.7% 5-year PRIMA arithmetic against the seroma price^[19][20][22]; classify by EHS width with the CeDAR/VHWG fence^[12][14]; plan complex disease on CT volumetry with tension-free-closure prediction^[29][30]; place mesh retromuscular with ≥5-cm overlap, treating overlap below 7 cm as the recurrence tripwire^[33][35][60]; reconstruct massive defects open with TAR at 6% pooled recurrence against 34% morbidity^[38]; choose MIS for wound arithmetic (laparoscopy minus 2.24 days and RR 0.29 infections; robotics plus 49 minutes) rather than recurrence^[43]; fix without fascial sutures (32.8% vs 15.7% pain)^[49]; bridge seroma-prone IPOM with peritoneum^[46]; prepare loss of domain with BTX plus pneumoperitoneum (97% closure)^[54]; mesh the emergency (24.5% vs 7.3%) unless contamination forbids^[50]; repair umbilical defects above 1 cm^[65] — and judge the result by HerQLes (MCID 15.6) as well as recurrence^[67].

References69ShowHide

1. [1]Deerenberg EB, Henriksen NA, et al. Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies. Br J Surg, 2022.PMID 36026550
2. [2]Henriksen NA, Montgomery A, et al. Guidelines for treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias from the European Hernia Society and Americas Hernia Society. Br J Surg, 2020.PMID 31916607
3. [3]Henriksen NA, Kaufmann R, et al. EHS and AHS guidelines for treatment of primary ventral hernias in rare locations or special circumstances. BJS Open, 2020.PMID 32207571
4. [4]Lomanto D, Iyer SG, et al. Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia mesh repair: a prospective study. Surg Endosc, 2006.PMID 16703430
5. [5]Rios-Diaz AJ, Cunning J, et al. Incidence, Burden on the Health Care System, and Factors Associated With Incisional Hernia After Trauma Laparotomy. JAMA Surg, 2021.PMID 34259810
6. [6]Maki H, Kim BJ, et al. Incidence of and Risk Factors for Incisional Hernia After Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases. J Gastrointest Surg, 2023.PMID 37537494
7. [7]Kaneko T, Funahashi K, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for incisional hernia after closure of temporary ileostomy for colorectal malignancy. Hernia, 2019.PMID 30426253
8. [8]Comajuncosas J, Hermoso J, et al. Risk factors for umbilical trocar site incisional hernia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective 3-year follow-up study. Am J Surg, 2014.PMID 24112669
9. [9]Kaoutzanis C, Leichtle SW, et al. Risk factors for postoperative wound infections and prolonged hospitalization after ventral/incisional hernia repair. Hernia, 2015.PMID 24030572
10. [10]Romero-Velez G, Lima DL, et al. Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection in the Undeserved Population After Ventral Hernia Repair: A 3936 Patient Single-Center Study Using National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2022.PMID 35319294
11. [11]Köckerling F, Hoffmann H, et al. Potential influencing factors on the outcome in incisional hernia repair: a registry-based multivariable analysis of 22,895 patients. Hernia, 2021.PMID 32277370
12. [12]Anwoju OA, Barrientes A, et al. Assessment of the European Hernia Society Classification of Ventral Hernias and Clinical Outcomes. HCA Healthc J Med, 2024.PMID 39790699
13. [13]Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, et al. Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery, 2010.PMID 20304452
14. [14]Fligor JE, Lanier ST, et al. Current Risk Stratification Systems Are Not Generalizable across Surgical Technique in Midline Ventral Hernia Repair. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 2017.PMID 28458960
15. [15]Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, et al. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2015.PMID 26188742
16. [16]Alrashidi A, Hageen AW, et al. Small Bites Versus Large Bites for Closure of Midline Abdominal Incisions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. World J Surg, 2025.PMID 40354104
17. [17]Golling M, Breul V, et al. The 6:1 short stitch SL-WL-ratio: short term closure results of transverse and midline incisions in elective and emergency operations. Hernia, 2024.PMID 38285168
18. [18]Murthy K, Neogi S, et al. Hughes Abdomen Closure Technique Versus Continuous Closure in Emergency Midline Laparotomy: A Randomized Controlled Study. Cureus, 2024.PMID 38910747
19. [19]Jairam AP, Timmermans L, et al. Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement versus primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): 2-year follow-up of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2017.PMID 28641875
20. [20]Van den Dop LM, Sneiders D, et al. Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement vs. primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): long-term outcomes of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Reg Health Eur, 2024.PMID 38188275
21. [21]van den Berg R, van den Dop LM, et al. Prophylactic Mesh-related Reoperations and Mesh-related Problems During Subsequent Relaparotomies: Long-term Results From the PRIMA Trial. Ann Surg, 2026.PMID 39239718
22. [22]Jairam AP, López-Cano M, et al. Prevention of incisional hernia after midline laparotomy with prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. BJS Open, 2020.PMID 32057193
23. [23]Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, et al. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement for midline incisional hernia prevention: systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hernia, 2023.PMID 35920944
24. [24]Olavarria OA, Dhanani NH, et al. Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for Prevention of Midline Incisional Hernias: A Publication Bias Adjusted Meta-analysis. Ann Surg, 2023.PMID 33630465
25. [25]Dewulf M, Muysoms F, et al. Prevention of Incisional Hernias by Prophylactic Mesh-augmented Reinforcement of Midline Laparotomies for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treatment: Five-year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg, 2022.PMID 35762612
26. [26]Caro-Tarrago A, Olona Casas C, et al. Prevention of incisional hernia in midline laparotomy with an onlay mesh: a randomized clinical trial. World J Surg, 2014.PMID 24663481
27. [27]Ulutas ME, Sahin A, et al. Does onlay mesh placement in emergency laparotomy prevent incisional hernia? A prospective randomized double-blind study. Hernia, 2023.PMID 36967415
28. [28]Lozada Hernández EE, Maldonado Barrios IL, et al. Surgical site occurrence after prophylactic use of mesh for prevention of incisional hernia in midline laparotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Surg Endosc, 2024.PMID 37932603
29. [29]Layton B, Lamb R, et al. CT of complex ventral hernias: a guide to reporting. Clin Radiol, 2025.PMID 40840113
30. [30]Al-Mansour MR, Wu J, et al. Linear versus volumetric CT analysis in predicting tension-free fascial closure in abdominal wall reconstruction. Hernia, 2021.PMID 33389214
31. [31]Schlosser KA, Maloney SR, et al. Three-dimensional hernia analysis: the impact of size on surgical outcomes. Surg Endosc, 2020.PMID 31236720
32. [32]Hawn MT, Snyder CW, et al. Long-term follow-up of technical outcomes for incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg, 2010.PMID 20421023
33. [33]Holihan JL, Hannon C, et al. Ventral Hernia Repair: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Surg Infect (Larchmt), 2017.PMID 28557648
34. [34]den Hartog D, Dur AH, et al. Open surgical procedures for incisional hernias. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2008.PMID 18646155
35. [35]Howard R, Ehlers A, et al. Mesh overlap for ventral hernia repair in current practice. Surg Endosc, 2023.PMID 37697114
36. [36]Rogmark P, Ekberg O, et al. Long-term retromuscular and intraperitoneal mesh size changes within a randomized controlled trial on incisional hernia repair, including a review of the literature. Hernia, 2017.PMID 28634690
37. [37]Novitsky YW, Elliott HL, et al. Transversus abdominis muscle release: a novel approach to posterior component separation during complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg, 2012.PMID 22607741
38. [38]Sadava EE, Laxague F, et al. Outcomes after open posterior component separation via transversus abdominis release (TAR) for incisional hernia repair. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia, 2024.PMID 39192038
39. [39]Sadava EE, Peña ME, et al. Long-term outcomes and quality of life assessment after posterior component separation with transversus abdominis muscle release (TAR). Surg Endosc, 2022.PMID 33661379
40. [40]Rogmark P, Smedberg S, et al. Long-Term Follow-Up of Retromuscular Incisional Hernia Repairs: Recurrence and Quality of Life. World J Surg, 2018.PMID 29018922
41. [41]Pauli EM, Rosen MJ Open ventral hernia repair with component separation. Surg Clin North Am, 2013.PMID 24035078
42. [42]Asencio F, Carbó J, et al. Laparoscopic Versus Open Incisional Hernia Repair: Long-Term Follow-up Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. World J Surg, 2021.PMID 34018042
43. [43]Almiron da R Soares G, de Oliveira Filho JR, et al. Robotic vs Laparoscopic vs Open Ventral Hernia Repair: Insights from a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. J Am Coll Surg, 2025.PMID 40407202
44. [44]Aliseda D, Sanchez-Justicia C, et al. Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive retromuscular ventral hernia repair using an enhanced view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) approach: systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia, 2022.PMID 35044545
45. [45]Mirza W, Khan ME, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on operative time, postoperative complications, and 12-24-month recurrence. J Robot Surg, 2025.PMID 41359075
46. [46]Ali F, Sandblom G, et al. Peritoneal Bridging Versus Nonclosure in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg Open, 2023.PMID 37600866
47. [47]Ahmed MA, Tawfic QA, et al. Pain and Surgical Outcomes Reporting After Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair in Relation to Mesh Fixation Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2018.PMID 29912610
48. [48]Mathes T, Prediger B, et al. Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2021.PMID 34046884
49. [49]Kohler A, Lavanchy JL, et al. Mesh fixation to fascia during incisional hernia repair results in increased prevalence of pain at long-term follow up: a multicenter propensity score matched prospective observational study. Surg Endosc, 2022.PMID 33620567
50. [50]Whittaker R, Lewis Z, et al. Emergent and urgent ventral hernia repair: comparing recurrence rates amongst procedures utilizing mesh versus no mesh. Surg Endosc, 2022.PMID 35233657
51. [51]Holland AM, Lorenz WR, et al. The Utilization of Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair (LVHR) in Incarcerated and Strangulated Cases: A National Trend in Outcomes. Am Surg, 2024.PMID 38557282
52. [52]Fredberg J, Oma E, et al. Emergency umbilical and epigastric hernia repair: nationwide registry-based study of long-term recurrence, mesh-related, and other complications. Surg Endosc, 2025.PMID 40404883
53. [53]Giuffrida M, Biolchini F, et al. Botulinum Toxin and Progressive Pneumoperitoneum in Loss of Domain Ventral Hernias: A Systematic Review. J Abdom Wall Surg, 2024.PMID 38572390
54. [54]Bueno-Lledó J, Carreño-Saenz O, et al. Preoperative Botulinum Toxin and Progressive Pneumoperitoneum in Loss of Domain Hernias-Our First 100 Cases. Front Surg, 2020.PMID 32181259
55. [55]Tashkandi A, Bueno-Lledó J, et al. Adjunct botox to preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum for incisional hernia with loss of domain: no additional effect but may improve outcomes. Hernia, 2021.PMID 33686553
56. [56]Azar FK, Crawford TC, et al. Ventral hernia repair in patients with abdominal loss of domain: an observational study of one institution's experience. Hernia, 2017.PMID 28181089
57. [57]Ramaswamy A Preoperative Optimization for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction. Surg Clin North Am, 2023.PMID 37709396
58. [58]Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, et al. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg, 2004.PMID 15383785
59. [59]Kokotovic D, Bisgaard T, et al. Long-term Recurrence and Complications Associated With Elective Incisional Hernia Repair. JAMA, 2016.PMID 27750295
60. [60]Karlsson S, Björklund I, et al. Long-term follow-up after incisional hernia repair: Dynamics of recurrence and patient-reported outcome. World J Surg, 2024.PMID 39031947
61. [61]Bhardwaj P, Huayllani MT, et al. Year-Over-Year Ventral Hernia Recurrence Rates and Risk Factors. JAMA Surg, 2024.PMID 38536183
62. [62]Parker SG, Mallett S, et al. Identifying predictors of ventral hernia recurrence: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJS Open, 2021.PMID 33839749
63. [63]Poruk KE, Hicks CW, et al. Creation of a novel risk score for surgical site infection and occurrence after ventral hernia repair. Hernia, 2017.PMID 27990572
64. [64]Melkemichel M, Stjärne L, et al. Onlay mesh repair for treatment of small umbilical hernias ≤ 2 cm in adults: a single-centre investigation. Hernia, 2022.PMID 34591212
65. [65]Kantor N, Gach T, et al. The Usefulness of the New EHS/AHS Classification of Primary Umbilical Hernias in the Selection of the Method of Their Treatment. Pol Przegl Chir, 2025.PMID 41171115
66. [66]Krpata DM, Schmotzer BJ, et al. Design and initial implementation of HerQLes: a hernia-related quality-of-life survey to assess abdominal wall function. J Am Coll Surg, 2012.PMID 22867715
67. [67]Renshaw SM, Gupta A, et al. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference for the Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey (HerQLes). Am J Surg, 2022.PMID 34256930
68. [68]Alzatari R, Hassanein R, et al. Determining the impact of individual ventral hernia repair complications on patient-reported quality of life. Hernia, 2023.PMID 37140759
69. [69]Kim JE, Mourad M, et al. Association of changes in HerQLes scores with objective hernia outcomes: an analysis of the ACHQC database. Surg Endosc, 2024.PMID 39164436