Journal Logo


Favorable Outcomes After Retro-Rectus (Rives-Stoppa) Mesh Repair as Treatment for Noncomplex Ventral Abdominal Wall Hernia, a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Hartog, Floris P. J. den MD; Sneiders, Dimitri MD, PhD; Darwish, Es F. MD; Yurtkap, Yağmur MD, PhD; Menon, Anand G. MD, PhD; Muysoms, Filip E. MD, PhD; Kleinrensink, Gert-Jan PhD§; Bouvy, Nicole D. MD, PhD; Jeekel, Johannes MD, PhD§; Lange, Johan F. MD, PhD

Author Information
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005422


Incisional and primary ventral abdominal wall hernia are common diseases, which account for over 348.000 surgical procedures each year in the United States. Moreover, despite increased use of minimally invasive surgery, numbers of ventral hernia repair procedures both in elective and emergency settings have not decreased.1

Although the natural development of ventral abdominal wall hernia has not been elucidated, ventral abdominal wall hernia is known to progress and may result in acute complications and mortality in case of incarceration.2–4 Additionally, ventral abdominal wall hernia is associated with pain, discomfort, impaired cosmesis, and impaired quality of life.5 Correctly performed elective treatment ameliorates these complaints and may prevent rarer sequelae of ventral abdominal wall hernia.

For all but the smallest ventral hernias, closure with mesh implantation is the gold standard.6 Mesh repair can be performed with multiple techniques, usually defined based on the position of the mesh (Fig. 1). Incisionalherniaresearch is hampered by the unsystematic use of different techniques, mesh types, fixation techniques, and the use of open or laparoscopic surgery. This results in heterogeneous results, making interpretation difficult. Moreover, benchmark outcomes for recurrence, infections, and complications are lacking.

International classification of abdominal wall planes. Reused with permission.14

Nearly all medical specialists and generalists encounter patients with ventral hernia at some point in their practice. Since the implementation of mesh repair, many misconceptions circulate concerning risks, complications and expected outcomes associated with mesh prostheses. Therefore, providing the broader medical community, not just (hernia) surgeons, with the accurate and comprehensive information required to inform patients and provide proper referral is imperative.

For medium sized (European Hernia Society Classification W2, ≥4–10 cm), noncomplex ventral abdominal wall hernia, retro-rectus repair, as described by Rives and Stoppa, is one of the most widely applied techniques.7–12 This technique is thought to be superior. However, accurate summary estimates of expected outcomes after retro-rectus repair concerning large and consecutive patient samples are lacking. Moreover, level-1 evidence, based on pooled estimates of randomized studies, confirming the presumed superiority of this technique is unavailable.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the pooled outcomes of specifically retro-rectus repair in terms of recurrence, infections and incidence of severe complications. Additionally, outcomes after retro-rectus repair will be compared to other available techniques.


This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.13 The study protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database with registration identifier CRD42018088247.

Search Strategy

The Embase, Medline Ovid, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies reporting specifically on retro-rectus (Rives-Stoppa) repair (Fig. 1).14 Published records were identified through June 2021. The full search syntax is presented in the Online Supplements, Conference abstracts, reviews, case reports, letters and editorials, pediatric studies, and studies not written in English were excluded. Articles published in journals not registered by both Web of Science and Scopus were excluded. Single armed and comparative studies (retrospective and prospective) were both eligible for inclusion. In case studies presented data on a similar cohort of patients (duplicate cases), the most recent outcomes were considered. Initial study selection was performed based on title and abstract by two independent reviewers, disagreement was resolved by consensus. Subsequently, selected abstracts were evaluated based on full text. Articles not clearly describing retro-rectus dissection, describing a preperitoneal technique only, combining retro-rectus dissection with component separation techniques or not presenting results separately for the retro-rectus technique were excluded. Case series presenting fewer than 10 patients were excluded.

Risk of Bias Assessment

A risk of bias assessment was performed for comparative studies by two independent reviewers, differences were resolved by consensus. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized trials15 and with the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool for non-randomized comparative stud-ies.16 Risk of bias was assessed separately for different outcomes, because the risk of bias may not be equal for all outcomes. Risk of bias was presented as separate columns in forest plots for individual studies and as stacked bar charts as an overview.

Data Extraction

Extracted baseline characteristics comprised age, body mass index, sex, etiological hernia type (primary or incisional), whether the hernia was recurrent, hernia size (as reported, width, diameter, or area). Surgical characteristics comprised the type of mesh used and whether open or minimally invasive surgery was performed. Outcomes included: follow-up duration, hernia recurrence (after a minimum of 12 and 24 months follow-up), diagnostic modality used, surgical site infection (SSI), seroma formation, serious complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) and 30-day mortality.17

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with R-statistics (version 4.01).18 Aggregated continuous baseline characteristics were summarized by calculating the median of provided summary measures in included studies. Categorical baseline characteristics were summarized in absolute numbers and percentages. Pooled proportions of outcomes were calculated with mixed effects models, using a random intercept logistic regression model for all outcomes except for SSI, for which the inverse variance method was used because the logistic regression model did not converge for that outcome. Heterogeneity in outcomes was quantified with the I2 statistic using the DerSimonian-Laird method. Pooled proportions were presented with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI) and a prediction interval. The prediction interval represents the estimate of an interval in which a single future observation will fall, given what has already been observed. Different outcomes of comparative studies were pooled with use of random effects models. Compared outcomes were presented as odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% CIs. A pooled OR was presented separately for randomized, non-randomized prospective, non-randomized retrospective, and all studies combined. Potential publication bias was assessed with funnel plots.


Literature Search Results

The PRISMA flow-chart is presented in Fig. 2. Out of 3335 unique records, 93 studies were included. These included 15 randomized trials, 36 prospective studies and 42 retrospective studies. Of these 93 studies, 43 studies were single-armed, non-comparative studies and 50 studies were comparative.

PRISMA flow-chart.

Baseline Characteristics

Baseline characteristics are presented in the Supplemental Digital Content Table 1, and Supplemental Digital Content Table 2, In total, 18,572 patients were included with a male to female ratio of approximately 1 to 3. Median or mean age (as reported) ranged from 25 to 66.9 years (aggregated median 55 years). Median or mean body mass index (as reported) ranged from 17.7 to 39 kg/m2 (aggregated median 29.7 kg/m2). For patients undergoing retro-rectus repair, median or mean hernia diameter ranged from 3.9 to 23.5 cm (aggregated median 7.2 cm) and mean or median hernia area ranged from 2.6 to 1690 cm2 (aggregated median 67.15 cm2). Median or mean follow-up duration (as reported) ranged from 1 to 112 months (aggregated median 17 months). Surgery for recurrent incisional hernia occurred in 1807 patients (9.7%) across 44 studies.19–62 Results after minimally invasive (laparoscopic, robotic, or hybrid) retro-rectus repair were reported by 17 studies (n = 1516)22,24,28,40,47,53,54,58,63–71 and results after open retro-rectus repair were reported by 78 studies (n = 10,924).19–21,23,25–27,29–39,41–46,48–52,54–62,71–110 Recurrence was generally diagnosed by physical examination. Radiological modalities (ultrasound, Computed Tomography-scan or Magnetic Resonance Imaging-scan), if used, were only used in case of uncertainty. Systematic radiological evaluation was only performed in two studies.93,110

Risk of Bias Assessment

Results of the risk of bias assessment are presented in Supplemental Digital Content Figure 1, and in all individual forest plots. For randomized studies, two studies (14%) had a serious risk of bias arising from the randomization process. One study inadequately described the randomization sequence used (merely stating “the lottery method”) and did not mention any blinding procedure.97 Another study did not report the specific randomization methodology and blinding procedures.73 For non-randomized studies, the majority of studies were at risk for confounding (moderate risk: 71%, critical risk: 21%) or selection bias (moderate risk: 61%, critical risk: 32%). Additionally, most studies (89%) had a moderate risk of bias due to their aforementioned lack of systematic use of radiological diagnostic modalities. To assess the risk for publication bias, funnel plots are presented for all comparative outcomes including more than 5 studies in Supplemental Digital Content Figure 2, Asymmetry in the funnel plots, suggesting a potential risk for publication bias was present in the comparison of retro-rectus repair to onlay repair on the incidence of SSI and seroma.

Overall Outcomes After Retro-rectus Mesh Repair

Outcomes after retro-rectus mesh repair are summarized in Fig. 3, the recurrence rate after a minimum of 12 months was 3.2% (95%CI: 2.4%–4.2%, 71 studies, n = 10,787) and after 24 months 4.1% (95%CI: 3.0%–5.6%, 36 studies, n = 3770). Serious complications and 30-day mortality, respectively, occurred in 2.7% (95%CI: 1.9%–4.0%, 42 studies, n = 4844) and 0.2% (95%CI: 0.1%–0.8%, 38 studies, n = 3650). Less severe complications including SSI and seroma respectively occurred in 5.2% (95%CI: 4.2%–6.5%, 71 studies, n = 7030) and 5.5% (95%CI: 4.4%–7.0%, 67 studies, n = 10,695). As is demonstrated in Supplemental Digital Content Figures 14,, 15 and 16, when only considering studies that included recurrent incisional hernia patients and patients operated on a first hernia, the recurrence rate after a minimum of 12months was 3.7% (95% CI: 2.6%–5.2%, 41 studies, n = 4003). The rates of SSI and seroma were estimated at 5.2% (95% CI: 3.4%–7.7%, 29 studies, n = 2864) and at 6.1% (95% CI: 4.0%–9.1%, 29 studies, n = 2864).

Overall outcomes after retro-rectus mesh repair (A) and minimally invasive retro-rectus mesh repair (B) Studies used per outcome (A): Recurrence (12 months):19–21,23,25–30,32–39,41–46,48,50–55,57,58,60–62,64,68,70–78,80,82–95,98–101,103,105,107,109,110. Recurrence (24months):19–21,26,27,29,30,32,33,36–38,41–44,48,50,55,60,62,71,72,74,76,77,80,83–85,89,93,94,98,105,110; Surgical site infection: 19–23,25–31,33–35,37–39,41–45,48–54,56,57,59–67,69,72–74,77–82,84–89,91,95–99,102,104–108,110,136; Seroma:19–23,25–34,36–42,44,45,47–50,52–54,56,57,63,64,66,67,69,72–74,76–82,84–92,95,96,98,100,102,104–107,110; Serious complication (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3); 20,21,24,25,27,29–31,34,36–40,42,45,47–52,54,56,58,61,63–67,69–72,74,78,95,96,102,108,137 Mortality: 20,21,23–26,28,29,31–34,36,38,42,44,46,48–51,53,61,63,65–67,70–72,74,75,77,86,95,99,102,108. Studies used peroutcome (B): Recurrence (12 months):28,53,54,58,64,68,70,71; Surgical site infection:22,28,53,54,63–67,69 Seroma: 22,28,40,47,53,54,63,64,66,67,69; Serious complication (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3):24,40,47,54,58,63–67,69–71. Complete figures for each individual outcome are available in the Online Supplements,

Retro-rectus Mesh Repair Versus Onlay Mesh Repair

Retro-rectus repair was compared to onlay mesh repair by 15 studies. Considering randomized studies only, retro-rectus repair was associated with a lower risk for hernia recurrence (OR: 0.33, 95%CI: 0.13–0.80, P = 0.016, 6 studies, n = 556), considering all studies this effect remained similar (OR: 0.27, 95%CI: 0.15–0.51, P < 0.001, 11 studies, n = 1217) (Fig. 4).33,72,73,78,84,87,89,90,103,105,107 Considering randomized studies only, retro-rectus repair was associated with a lower risk for SSI (OR: 0.41, 95%CI: 0.25–0.68, P < 0.001, 8 studies, n = 906), considering all studies this effect remained similar (OR: 0.40, 95%CI: 0.26–0.60, P < 0.001, 13 studies, n = 1632) (Fig. 5).33,72,73,78,79,84,87,89,97,104–107 Considering randomized studies only, retro-rectus repair was associated with a lower risk for seroma (OR: 0.29, 95%CI: 0.18–0.45, P < 0.001, 8 studies, n — 866), considering all studies this effect remained similar (OR: 0.36, 95%CI: 0.23–0.56, P < 0.001, 13 studies, n = 1592) (Fig. 5).33,72,73,78,79,84,87,89,97,104–107

Recurrence after retro-rectus mesh repair versus onlay mesh repair (top) and retro-rectus mesh repair versus intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (bottom). IPOM: intraperitoneal onlay mesh;OR: odds ratio;D1 – D5/D7: risk of bias domains.
All comparative outcomes. IPOM: intraperitoneal onlay mesh. Full-size, detailed forest plots for all of the above outcomes are available in the Supplemental Digital Content Figures 3–13,

Retro-rectus Mesh Repair Versus Intraperitoneal Onlay Repair

Retro-rectus repair was compared to intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair by 19 studies. Considering randomized studies only, retro-rectus repair was associated with an equal risk for hernia recurrence (OR: 0.80, 95%CI: 0.39–1.64, P = 0.540, 3 studies, n = 297), considering all studies this effect remained similar (OR: 0.92, 95%CI: 0.75–1.12, P = 0.400, 13 studies, n = 8216) (Fig. 5).30,39,44,45,57,64,74–76,86,92,101 Considering randomized studies only, retro-rectus repair was associated with an increased incidence of SSI (OR: 4.6, 95%CI: 1.14–18.54, P = 0.032,4 studies, n = 415), considering all studies this effect remained significant (OR: 1.8, 95%CI: 1.03–3.14, P = 0.038, 15 studies, n = 1634) (Fig. 5).30,31,39,44,45,56,57,63,64,69,74,81,86,96,102 Considering randomized studies only, retro-rectus repair was associated with an equal risk for seroma (OR: 0.53,95%CI: 0.25–1.16, P < 0.111,4 studies, n = 415), considering all studies this effect remained similar (OR: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.52–1.58, P = 0.718, 17 studies, n = 9680) (Fig. 5).30,31,39,44,45,56,57,63,64,69,74,76,81,86,92,96,102

Retro-rectus Versus Preperitoneal Repair

One study compared retro-rectus (n = 68) to preperitoneal repair (n = 92).85 In this study, propensity score matching was used to match patients who underwent retro-rectus repair to patients who underwent preperitoneal repair. Nine patients in the retro-rectus group (13%) had a recurrence aftera mean follow-up of42.6 months. Eleven patients in the preperitoneal group (12%) had a recurrence after a mean follow-up of 35.9 months. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.33), and neither were differences in SSI or seroma formation.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Retro-rectus Repair

Minimally invasive retro-rectus repair was associated with a lower incidence of recurrence compared to open retro-rectus repair (OR 0.35, 95%CI: 0.18–0.70, P = 0.003, 3 studies, n = 1317).58,71,92 No studies compared the incidence of SSI, seroma, or serious complications. Overall non-comparative results of minimally invasive retro-rectus repair are summarized in Fig. 3. The recurrence rate after 12months was 1.3% (95%CI: 0.7%–2.3%, 8 studies, n = 849).28,53,54,58,64,68,70,71 Serious complications occurred in 2.9% (95%CI: 2.1%–3.9%, 13 studies, n = 1366),40,47,54,58,63–67,69,70,71,111–113 data on mortality was not reported. Less severe complications including SSI and seroma respectively occurred in 1.5% (95%CI: 0.8%–2.8%, 10 studies, n = 982)22,28,53,54,63–67,69 and 5% (95%CI: 2.7%–9.1%, 11 studies, n = 1269).22,28,40,47,53,54,63,64,66,67,69

Outcomes After Retro-rectus Repair With Different Mesh Types or Fixation Techniques

No significant difference was present on the risk for recurrence between heavyweight and lightweight mesh (OR 1.09, 95%CI: 0.43–2.74, P = 0.14, 4 studies, n = 827) (Fig. 5).27,77,93,110 Additionally, no significant difference was present concerning SSI (OR 0.94, 95%CI: 0.40–2.21, P = 0.888, 3 studies, n = 803) or seroma (OR 0.83, 95%CI: 0.48–1.43, P = 0.500, 3 studies, n = 803) (Fig. 5).27,77,110 No significant difference was present in the incidence of hernia recurrence between synthetic and biological mesh (OR 0.5, 95%CI: 0.168–1.460, P = 0.203, 2 studies, n = 184) (Fig. 5).44,109 Additionally, no significant difference was present for SSI (OR 0.63, 95%CI: 0.144–2.76, P = 0.802, 1 study, n = 127), but a lower rate of seroma was reported in the synthetic group (OR 0.221, 95%CI: 0.077–0.64, P = 0.006, 1 study, n = 127).44 Hernia recurrence after retro-rectus repair with a mesh fixed with sutures versus self-adhering mesh was compared in two studies, however no recurrent hernia was reported in either group.25,91 Additionally, no significant difference was present concerning SSI (OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.032–4.346, P = 0.430, 2 studies, n = 76) or seroma (OR: 1.49, 95%CI: 0.271–8.147, P = 0.649, 2 studies, n = 76) (Fig. 5).


Based on pooled estimates of reported outcomes, retro-rectus repair according to the Rives-Stoppa technique was usually associated with favourable outcomes. Recurrence rates after a minimum follow-up of 24 months were low and would likely facilitate a clear treatment benefit for most patients. SSI and seroma formation occur infrequently. Moreover, severe complications were rarely reported and 30-day mortality rates did not exceed risks which are generally associated with surgical procedures under general anaesthesia.114,115

Retro-rectus repair was associated with a substantial benefit when compared to onlay mesh repair. Onlay mesh repair was associated with both a 3.7-fold increase in hernia recurrence and an increased incidence of SSI and seroma. Compared to intraperito-neal onlay repair, recurrence rates were similar. However, intraperi-toneal onlay repairwas associated with a lowerincidence of SSI. The latter is likely explained by the fact that intraperitoneal onlay repair is usually performed by laparoscopic or robotic surgery, leading to fewer wound related complications.116 Unfortunately, data on the relatively novel minimally invasive retro-rectus repair techniques is still limited. Based on available data, minimally invasive retro-rectus repair is associated with equally low rates of SSI compared to intraperitoneal onlay repair. Based on three non-randomized studies, minimally invasive retro-rectus repair showed significant and clinically relevant reduction in recurrence rate compared to open retro-rectus repair.58,71,92 However, these findings have yet to be validated in randomized studies. Preperitoneal repair was only compared to retro-rectus repair in one study, therefore, superiority of either technique cannot be confirmed.85

Different mesh types and mesh fixation techniques used for retro-rectus repair are infrequently studied. No superiority of a specific mesh type or fixation technique was identified. The use of a biological mesh was assessed in one randomized study which was concluded prematurely due to a high rate of recurrence in the biological mesh group.44 Although this difference did not reach statistical significance for the retro-rectus repair subgroup, a near two-fold increased recurrence rate was reported after retro-rectus repair with a biological mesh, after a follow-up of up to 36 months. Additionally, biological mesh is associated with much higher costs compared to conventional prosthesis.117

State of the art hernia research often focuses on technical developments, novel mesh types, fixation techniques, and preopera-tive conditioning. However, as identified by the present study, one of the most important factors determining results is the applied surgical technique. Technical developments should be assessed for one specific surgical technique.

An infrequently identified factor which has a major effect on recurrence rate is the diagnostic modality used.118 Although systematic radiological follow-up with use of ultrasound is recommended to assess the incidence of hernia recurrence, these follow-up schemes are only rarely performed, likely due to associated costs and patient burden. The majority of studies only used radiological assessment in case of inconclusive physical examination. Based on prior research, this could result in up to approximately two times lower observed hernia recurrence rates.118 Based on present data, this would constitute to actual average recurrence rates of up to approximately 6% and 8% after, respectively, 12 and 24 months follow-up, which would still be acceptable. Moreover, one previous study suggested that a hernia detected solely by radiology is often asymptomatic and thus clinically irrelevant.119

Although the average rates of complications and recurrence after retro-rectus repair are low, this does not necessarily apply to all patient groups. This is demonstrated by large prediction intervals and heterogeneity present in pooled analyses. Patients with known patient related risk factors such as obesity and smoking, patients who developed infection post-surgery or who underwent surgery in an emergency setting have a higher associated risk of up to approximately 20% for recurrence. These patients should be counselled appropriately.120–123 Unfortunately, accurately validated models to quantify these risks are unavailable to date.124

Intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair was associated with fewer SSIs and equal hernia recurrence risk compared to retro-rectus repair. Therefore, potential advantages of this technique must not be excluded, especially when a minimally invasive technique is preferred. Based on present data, intraperitoneal mesh placement was not associated with increased occurrence of serious complications. Nevertheless, some controversy remains concerning placement of foreign materials within the abdominal cavity, as rare adverse events which could influence clinical decision making will potentially not be captured well by interventional studies with predominantly smaller sample sizes and relatively short follow-up. In theory, intra-abdominal mesh placement could lead to increased formation of adhesions which could in turn lead to problems such as an obstructive ileus or fistulation. Data on these complications is unfortunately limited. In some observational studies, intra-peritoneal mesh placement was associated with substantial adhesion formation, however, no standardized metric exists to measure adhesions and in these same studies, measured adhesions appeared not to result in major clinical consequences in the majority of patients.125–132 Additionally, induction of adhesions is not limited to intraperitoneal mesh placement, but may also be of concern for retrorectus repair.

Based on current data, preference for either technique cannot be definitively established. The retro-rectus technique provides a protected plane and will provide some medialization of the rectus sheath, which constitutes some theoretical advantages. However, the intraperitoneal technique may provide a technically less demanding minimally invasive approach, which could be desired in specific patients, and results in less SSIs. Regardless of the technique used, placement of any prosthetic foreign materials requires continuous monitoring to identify potential rare adverse events. The increased risk for SSI associated with retro-rectus repair as compared to intraperitoneal onlay repair may be considered acceptable when preferring a protected anatomical plane, when an open approach is required, when requiring medialization, or when additional component separation may be necessary. In absolute terms, the incidence of SSI after retro-rectus repair was estimated to be relatively low, occurring in approximately one in every twenty patients. Moreover, in the majority of cases, these infectious complications may be of relatively mild nature, treatable during the postoperative course without surgical intervention.133 Unexpectedly, the higher incidence of postoperative infection did not lead to more recurrence when compared to intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair.

The marked increase in SSI associated with retro-rectus repair as compared to intraperitoneal onlay repair is likely caused by the open nature of retro-rectus repair. Minimally invasive retro-rectus repair techniques are novel, but have shown promising results in recent observational series, seeming to reduce both the complication and recurrence risk.22,24,28,40,47,53,54,58,63–71 Minimally invasive retro-rectus repair may, therefore, be the next step forward for (incisional) hernia repair. However, evaluation in large adequately powered randomized trials is warranted.

Considering the present results, retro-rectus repair may be considered the optimal open treatment for medium-sized, noncomplex ventral abdominal wall hernia, associated with low recurrence rates and low risks for adverse events. It should be noted that complex ventral hernia repair (contaminated environment or giant hernias) may benefit from using different techniques, allowing for a technically less demanding laparoscopic approach or including additional component separation. From a technical perspective, retro-rectus repair will provide medialization of the rectus sheath, and may be extended with either anterior or posterior component separation when tension free closure is not possible.134,135 Therefore, open ventral hernia repair should preferably be performed with retro-rectus mesh (Rives-Stoppa) repair, whereas other techniques may be reserved as salvage techniques in case of recurrence or in case retro-rectus repair is not possible due to anatomical or patient related concerns.


The present meta-analysis has several limitations, and methodological concerns in included studies were frequently identified. A risk for publication bias was identified on two compared outcomes. Due to a lack of systematic radiological evaluation, absolute recurrence rates are underestimated. Event rates in observational studies may be lower as compared to prospective or randomized studies, including systematic follow-up procedures as opposed to clinical follow-up. This was confirmed by sensitivity analyses (Supplemental Digital Content Figure 17, and Supplemental Digital Content Figure 18, Most included studies did not adequately report on mortality. When not reported, absence of mortality could not be assumed, therefore, the risk for associated mortality might have been overestimated. A risk for selection bias was identified in part of the comparative cohorts. Clinical selection of patients may have played a role in the obtained results of observational cohorts, potentially resulting in lower event rates. No sensitivity analysis was performed based on results of the risk of bias analysis. Most studies showed a risk of bias in the same quality domain (predominantly related to the use of radiological examination and patient selection). Therefore, it is difficult to provide a meaningful stratified analysis with sufficient numbers of patients included. Functional outcomes after ventral hernia repair, for example those related to cosmesis, daily activities, pain, and quality of life, are increasingly important parameters to assess treatment effectivity. These outcomes were not captured by the present study. Due to analysis of aggregated data, identification of treatment effects of specific subgroups or of additional risk factors was not possible.

Potential complications specific to the retro-rectus technique are posterior sheath breakdown, rectus denervation resulting in lateral bulge and violation of the semilunar line resulting in a lateral hernia. These are more often observed after transversus abdominis release and were rarely (ie, in virtually no study) reported. As such, we are unable to estimate their incidence or further consequences. We may assume that either these complications occur rarely, or are rarely captured in current clinical follow-up, due to losses or follow-up or failure to recognize and document these problems adequately. Overall rates of major complications leading to re-intervention were included in the analysis and occurred infrequently.

There is some heterogeneity in how retro-rectus mesh repair is performed, for example in the size of the cranio-caudal and mediolateral dissections, mesh fixation techniques, types of mesh, mesh overlap (ie, magnitude of lateral dissection), closure technique (small bites and large bites), and dissection and/or use of the hernia sac. Despite this heterogeneity, which will be present across all included studies, the primary anatomical principle of using the retro-rectus plane shows favorable long-term and short-term outcomes.


Considering pooled estimates, retro-rectus repair according to the Rives-Stoppa technique for ventral hernia was associated with favourable postoperative and long-term outcomes. Retro-rectus repair was superior to onlay mesh repair regarding all objectified outcomes. Intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair showed fewer SSIs but a comparable hernia recurrence rate, likely due to its minimally invasive nature. Minimally invasive retro-rectus repair might be the next major step forward in ventral hernia repair. Adequately powered randomized trials comparing open to minimally invasive retro-rectus repair are required to demonstrate its potential superiority. Initial, open ventral hernia repair should preferably be performed with use of the retro-rectus technique, whereas other techniques may be reserved as salvage techniques in case of recurrence or for patients for whom retro-rectus repair is not possible.


The authors thank W.M. Bramer from the Erasmus MC Medical Library for developing and updating the search strategies.


1. Beadles CA, Meagher AD, Charles AG. Trends in emergent hernia repair in the United States. JAMA Surg 2015; 150:194–200.
2. Sando A, Rosen MJ, Heniford BT, et al. Long-term patient-reported outcomes and quality of the evidence in ventral hernia mesh repair: a systematic review. Hernia 2020; 24:695–705.
3. de Smet GHJ, Sneiders D, Yurtkap Y, et al. Functional outcomes in symptomatic versus asymptomatic patients undergoing incisional hernia repair: replacing one problem with another? A prospective cohort study in 1312 patients. Int J Surg 2020; 82:76–84.
4. Nieuwenhuizen J, Halm JA, Jeekel J, et al. Natural course of incisional hernia and indications for repair. Scand J Surg 2007; 96:293–296.
5. van Ramshorst GH, Eker HH, Hop WC, et al. Impact of incisional hernia on health-related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study. Am J Surg 2012; 204:144–150.
6. den Hartog D, Dur AH, Tuinebreijer WE, et al. Open surgical procedures for incisional hernias. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; CD006438.
7. Rives J, Pire JC, Flament JB, et al. [Treatment of large eventrations. New therapeutic indications apropos of 322 cases] Le traitement des grandes eventrations. Nouvelles indications therapeutiques a propos de 322 cas. Chirurgie 1985; 111:215–225.
8. Stoppa R, Louis D, Verhaeghe P, et al. Current surgical treatment of postoperative eventrations. Int Surg 1987; 72:42–44.
9. Stoppa R, Moungar F, Verhaeghe P. Surgical treatment of supraumbilical eventrations. J Chir (Paris) 1992; 129:335–343.
10. Stoppa R, Petit J, Abourachid H, et al. Original procedure of groin hernia repair: interposition without fixation of Dacron tulle prosthesis by subper-itoneal median approach. Chirurgie 1973; 99:119–123.
11. Rives J, Lardennois B, Pire JC, et al. Large incisional hernias. The importance of flail abdomen and of subsequent respiratory disorders. Chirurgie 1973; 99:547–563.
12. Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, et al. Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 2009; 13:407–414.
13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372:n71.
14. Parker SG, Halligan S, Liang MK, et al. International classification of abdominal wall planes (ICAP) to describe mesh insertion for ventral hernia repair. Br J Surg 2020; 107:209–217.
15. Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366:l4898.
16. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: atool forassessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355:i4919.
17. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240:205–213.
18. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. [Internet] Available at: Accessed June 1, 2021.
19. Arer IM, Yabanoglu H, Aytac HO, et al. Long-term results of retromuscular hernia repair: a single center experience. Pan Afr Med J 2017; 27:132.
20. Bara T, Gurzu S, Borz C, et al. Retromuscularmeshand hernial sac technique in the reconstruction of 139 cases of large median incisional hernias: one institution's experience. Hernia 2020; 24:99–105.
21. Bauer JJ, Harris MT, Gorfine SR, et al. Rives-Stoppa procedure for repair of large incisional hernias: experience with 57 patients. Hernia 2002; 6:120–123.
22. Belyansky I, Reza Zahiri H, Sanford Z, et al. Early operative outcomes of endoscopic (eTEP access) robotic-assisted retromuscular abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia 2018; 22:837–847.
23. Berry MF, Paisley S, Low DW, et al. Repair of large complex recurrent incisional hernias with retromuscular mesh and panniculectomy. Am J Surg 2007; 194:199–204.
24. Bittner R, Schwarz J. Endoscopic mini/less open sublay operation for treatment of primary and secondary ventral hernias of the abdominal wall. Eur Surg Acta Chir Austriaca 2017; 49:65–70.
25. Bueno-Lledo J, Torregrosa A, Arguelles B, et al. Progrip self-gripping mesh in Rives-Stoppa repair: are there any differences in outcomes versus a retromuscular polypropylene mesh fixed with sutures? A “case series” study. Int J Surg Case Rep 2017; 34:60–64.
26. Canziani M, Frattini F, Cavalli M, et al. Sutureless mesh fibrin glue incisional hernia repair. Hernia 2009; 13:625–629.
27. Conze J, Kingsnorth AN, Flament JB, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight composite mesh with polyester or polypropylene mesh for incisional hernia repair. Br J Surg 2005; 92:1488–1493.
28. Costa TN, Abdalla RZ, Santo MA, et al. Transabdominal midline reconstruction by minimally invasive surgery: technique and results. Hernia 2016; 20:257–265.
29. Duce AM, Muguerza JM, Villeta R, et al. The Rives operation for the repair of incisional hernias. Hernia 1997; 1:175–177.
30. Eker HH, Hansson BME, Buunen M, et al. Laparoscopic vs open incisional hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2013; 148:259–263.
31. Fischer JP, Basta MN, Mirzabeigi MN, et al. A comparison of outcomes and cost in VHWG grade II hernias between Rives-Stoppa synthetic mesh hernia repair versus underlay biologic mesh repair. Hernia 2014; 18:781–789.
32. Gangur? AG, Palade RS. Surgical treatment of large median incisional hernia using the prosthetic mesh introduced behind the rectus abdominis muscle sheath procedure (Rives-Stoppa procedure). J Med Life 2014; 7:412–414.
33. Gleysteen JJ. Mesh-reinforced ventral hernia repair: preference for 2 techniques. Arch Surg 2009; 144:740–745.
34. Hicks CW, Blatnik JA, Krpata DM, et al. History of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) surgical site infection may not be a contraindication to ventral hernia repair with synthetic mesh: a preliminary report. Hernia 2014; 18:65–70.
35. Holihan JL, Bondre I, Askenasy EP, et al. Sublay versus underlay in open ventral hernia repair. J Surg Res 2016; 202:26–32.
36. Kurzer M, Kark A, Selouk S, et al. Open mesh repair of incisional hernia using a sublay technique: long-term follow-up. World J Surg 2008; 32:31–36.
37. Lanier ST, Fligor JE, Miller KR, et al. Reliable complex abdominal wall hernia repairs with a narrow, well-fixed retrorectus polypropylene mesh: a review of over 100 consecutive cases. Surgery 2016; 160:1508–1516.
38. Larson G, Temudom T, Donahue P, et al. Repair of complex giant or recurrent ventral hernias by using tension-free intraparietal prosthetic mesh (Stoppa technique): lessons learned from our initial experience (fifty patients) – discussion. Surgery 1996; 120:743–744.
39. Lomanto D, Iyer SG, Shabbir A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia mesh repair: a prospective study. Surg Endosc Interv Tech 2006; 20:1030–1035.
40. Lu R, Addo A, Ewart Z, et al. Comparative review of outcomes: laparoscopic and robotic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) access retrorectus repairs. Surg Endosc 2020; 34:3597–3605.
41. Maman D, Greenwald D, Kreniske J, et al. Modified Rives-Stoppa technique for repair of complex incisional hernias in 59 patients. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68:190–193.
42. Martín-Duce A, Noguerales F, Villeta R, et al. Modifications to Rives technique for midline incisional hernia repair. Hernia 2001; 5:70–72.
43. McLanahan D, King LT, Weems C, et al. Retrorectus prosthetic mesh repair of midline abdominal hernia. Am J Surg 1997; 173:445–449.
44. Miserez M, Lefering R, Famiglietti F, et al. Synthetic versus biological mesh in laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair (LAPSIS): results of a multinational, randomized, controlled, and double-blind trial. Ann Surg 2021; 273:57–65.
45. Misra MC, Bansal VK, Kulkarni MP, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair of incisional and primary ventral hernia: results of a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 2006; 20:1839–1845.
46. Muse TO, Zwischenberger BA, Miller MT, et al. Outcomes after ventral hernia repair using the rives-stoppa, endoscopic, and open component separation techniques. Am Surg 2018; 84:433–437.
47. Ngo P, Cossa JP, Largenton C, et al. Ventral hernia repair by totally extraperitoneal approach (VTEP): technique description and feasibility study. Surg Endosc 2021; 35:1370–1377.
48. Notash AY, Notash AY Jr, Farshi JS, et al. Outcomes of the Rives-Stoppa technique in incisional hernia repair: ten years of experience. Hernia 2007; 11:25–29.
49. Oprea V, Matei O, Leuc? D, et al. Late results and quality of life after rives-Stoppa repair for incisional hernias: a prospective clinical study. Chirurgia (Bucur) 2013; 108:679–683.
50. Pearson DG, Madura JA. Modified retrorectus ventral hernia repair. Am J Surg 2016; 211:615–618.
51. Petersen S, Henke G, Freitag M, et al. Deep prosthesis infection in incisional hernia repair: predictive factors and clinical outcome. Eur J Surg 2001; 167:453–457.
52. Plymale MA, Davenport DL, Dugan A, et al. Ventral hernia repair with poly–4-hydroxybutyrate mesh. Surg Endose 2017; 32:1689–1694.
53. Quezada N, Grimoldi M, Besser N, et al. Enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) approach for the treatment of abdominal wall hernias: midterm results. Surg Endosc 2021; 36:632–639.
54. Reinpold W, Schroder M, Berger C, et al. Mini- or Less-open Sublay Operation (MILOS): a new minimally invasive technique for the extraperi-toneal mesh repair of incisional hernias. Ann Surg 2018; 269:748–755.
55. Rogmark P, Smedberg S, Montgomery A. Long-term follow-up of retro-muscular incisional hernia repairs: recurrence and quality of life. World J Surg 2017; 42:974–980.
56. Rosen MJ. Polyester-based mesh for ventral hernia repair: is it safe? Am J Surg 2009; 197:353–359.
57. Rosen MJ, Denoto G, Itani KMF, et al. Evaluation of surgical outcomes of retro-rectus versus intraperitoneal reinforcement with bio-prosthetic mesh in the repair of contaminated ventral hernias. Hernia 2013; 17:31–35.
58. Schroeder AD, Debus ES, Schroeder M, et al. Laparoscopic transperitoneal sublay mesh repair: a new technique for the cure of ventral and incisional hernias. Surg Endosc 2013; 27:648–654.
59. Strambu V, Radu P, Br?tucu M, et al. Rives technique, a gold standard for incisional hernias - our experience. Chirurgia 2013; 108:46–50.
60. Toniato A, Pagetta C, Bernante P, et al. Incisional hernia treatment with progressive pneumoperitoneum and retromuscular prosthetic hernioplasty. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2002; 387:246–248.
61. Verhelst J, de Goede B, Kleinrensink GJ, et al. Open incisional hernia repair with a self-gripping retromuscular Parietex mesh: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg 2015; 13:184–188.
62. Wheeler AA, Matz ST, Bachman SL, et al. Retrorectus polyester mesh repair for midline ventral hernias. Hernia 2009; 13:597–603.
63. Penchev D, Kotashev G, Mutafchiyski V. Endoscopic enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal retromuscular approach for ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2019; 33:3749–3756.
64. Bellido Luque J, Gomez Rosado JC, Bellido Luque A, et al. Endoscopic retromuscular technique (eTEP) vs conventional laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair with defect closure (IPOM +) for midline hernias. A case – control study. Hernia 2021; 25:1061–1070.
65. Kohler G, Kaltenbock R, Pfandner R, et al. Precostal top-down extended totally extraperitoneal ventral hernia plasty (eTEP): simplification of a complex technical approach. Hernia 2020; 24:527–535.
66. Morrell ALG, Morrell AC, Cavazzola LT, et al. Robotic assisted eTEP ventral hernia repair: Brazilian early experience. Hernia 2020; 25:765–774.
67. Gokcal F, Morrison S, Kudsi OY. Robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair and transversus abdominis release: short-term outcomes and risk factors associated with perioperative complications. Hernia 2019; 23:375–385.
68. Radu VG. Retromuscular approach in ventral hernia repair - endoscopic Rives-Stoppa procedure. Chirurgia (Bucur) 2019; 114:109–114.
69. Kumar N, Palanisamy NV, Parthasarathi R, et al. A comparative prospective study of short-term outcomes of extended view totally extraperitoneal (e-TEP) repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal on lay mesh (IPOM) plus repair for ventral hernia. Surg Endosc 2020; 35:5072–5077.
70. Andreuccetti J, Sartori A, Lauro E, et al. Extended totally extraperitoneal Rives-Stoppa (eTEP-RS) technique for ventral hernia: initial experience of The Wall Hernia Group and a surgical technique update. Updates Surg 2021; 73:1955–1961.
71. Raftopoulos I, Vanuno D, Khorsand J, et al. Comparison of open and laparoscopic prosthetic repair of large ventral hernias. JSLS 2003; 7:227–232.
72. Abdollahi A, Maddah GH, Mehrabi BM, et al. Prosthetic incisional hernio-plasty: clinical experience with 354 cases. Hernia 2010; 14:569–573.
73. Afzal S, Baloch SH, Usman J. Comparison of on-lay (on the rectus sheath) and sub-lay (Retromuscular) mesh repair of ventral abdominal hernias. Pak J Med Health Sci 2016; 10:1161–1164.
74. Alizai PH, Lelaona E, Andert A, et al. Incisional hernia repair of mediumand large-sized defects: laparoscopic IPOM versus open SUBLAY technique. Acta Chir Belg 2019; 119:231–235.
75. Ammaturo C, Bassi G. The ratio between anterior abdominal wall surface/wall defect surface: a new parameter to classify abdominal incisional hernias. Hernia 2005; 9:316–321.
76. Berrevoet F, D’Hont F, Rogiers X, et al. Open intraperitoneal versus retromuscular mesh repair for umbilical hernias less than 3 cm diameter. Am J Surg 2011; 201:85–90.
77. Berrevoet F, Maes L, De Baerdemaeker L, et al. Comparable results with 3-year follow-up for large-pore versus small-pore meshes in open incisional hernia repair. Surgery (USA) 2010; 148:969–975.
78. Bessa SS, El-Gendi AM, Ghazal AH, et al. Comparison between the shortterm results of onlay and sublay mesh placement in the management of uncomplicated para-umbilical hernia: a prospective randomized study. Hernia 2015; 19:141–146.
79. Bhellar ZH, Shar ZALI, Bozdar AG, et al. Compare the outcomes of onlay versus sublay mesh procedure in patients with ventral hernia repair. Pak J Med Health Sci 2020; 14:1317–1319.
80. Bueno-Lledo J, Torregrosa A, Jimenez-Rosellon R, et al. Predictors of hernia recurrence after Rives-Stoppa repair in the treatment of incisional hernias: a retrospective cohort. Surg Endosc 2019; 33:2934–2940.
81. Bui NH, Jørgensen LN, Jensen KK. Laparoscopic intraperitoneal versus enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal retromuscular mesh repair for ventral hernia: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2022; 36:1500–1506.
82. Cheesborough JE, Dumanian GA. Simultaneous prosthetic mesh abdominal wall reconstruction with abdominoplasty for ventral hernia and severe rectus diastasis repairs. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135:268–276.
83. Christopher AN, Morris MP, Patel V, et al. An evaluation of clinical and quality of life outcomes after ventral hernia repair with poly-4-hydroxybu-tyrate mesh. Hernia 2021; 25:717–726.
84. Demetrashvili Z, Pipia I, Loladze D, et al. Open retromuscular mesh repair versus onlay technique of incisional hernia: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Surg 2017; 37:65–70.
85. Dougaz MW, Chaouch MA, Cherni S, et al. Preperitoneal versus retromuscular mesh repair for ventral abdominal hernias: a propensity matched analysis. Indian J Surg 2020; 82:868–873.
86. Forte A, Zullino A, Manfredelli S, et al. Incisional hernia surgery: report on 283 cases. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2011; 15:644–648.
87. Gurrado A, Franco IF, Lissidini G, et al. Impact of pericardium bovine patch (Tutomesh®) on incisional hernia treatment in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields: retrospective comparative study. Hernia 2014; 19:1–8.
88. Hameed F, Ahmed B, Ahmed A, et al. Incisional hernia repair by preperitoneal (sublay) mesh implantation. Ann Punjab Med 2009; 3:27–31.
89. Iljin A, Antoszewski B, Zielinski T, et al. Sublay or onlay incisional hernia repair along with abdominoplasty: which is better? Long-term results. Hernia 2019; 23:757–765.
90. Jameel MK, Saeed R, Saeed AB, et al. Comparison of onlay versus sublay hernioplasty for ventral hernia. Pak J Med Health Sci 2020; 14:326–328.
91. Khansa I, Janis JE. Abdominal wall reconstruction using retrorectus self-adhering mesh: a novel approach. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4:e1145.
92. Kockerling F, Simon T, Adolf D, et al. Laparoscopic IPOM versus open sublay technique for elective incisional hernia repair: a registry-based, propensity score-matched comparison of 9907 patients. Surg Endosc 2019; 33:3361–3369.
93. Ladurner R, Chiapponi C, Linhuber Q, et al. Long term outcome and quality of life after open incisional hernia repair–light versus heavy weight meshes. BMC Surg 2011; 11:25.
94. Lasheen aE. Mesh expansion and fixation at the recto-rectus plane through multiple stabs by using two tip hole needles in midline hernias repair. A prospective study. Int J Surg 2008; 6:367–370.
95. Memon MR, Shaikh AA, Memon SR, et al. Results of stoppa's sublay mesh repair in incisional & ventral hernias. J Pak Med Assoc 2010; 60:798–801.
96. Navarra G, Musolino C, De Marco ML, et al. Retromuscular sutured incisional hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial to compare open and laparoscopic approach. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2007; 17:86–90.
97. Naz A, Abid K, Syed AA, et al. Comparative evaluation of sublay versus onlay mesh repair for ventral hernia. J Pak Med Assoc 2018; 68:705–708.
98. Paajanen H, Hermunen H. Long-term pain and recurrence after repair of ventral incisional hernias by open mesh: clinical and MRI study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2004; 389:366–370.
99. Petersen S, Henke G, Zimmermann L, et al. Ventral rectus fascia closure on top of mesh hernia repair in the sublay technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114:1754–1760.
100. Petro CC, Nahabet EH, Criss CN, et al. Central failures of lightweight monofilament polyester mesh causing hernia recurrence: a cautionary note. Hernia 2015; 19:155–159.
101. Rogmark P, Ekberg O, Montgomery A. 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; 21:687–696.
102. Rogmark P, Petersson U, Bringman S, et al. Short-term outcomes for open and laparoscopic midline incisional hernia repair: A randomized multicenter controlled trial: the prolove (prospective randomized trial on open versus laparoscopic operation of ventral eventrations) trial. Ann Surg 2013; 258:37–45.
103. Roth JS, Anthone GJ, Selzer DJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh in CDC class I/high-risk ventral and incisional hernia repair: 18-month follow-up. Surg Endosc 2017; 32:1929–1936.
104. Saber A, Emad KB. Onlay versus sublay mesh repair for ventral hernia. J Surg 2015; 4:1–4.
105. Sevinc B, Okus A, Ay S, et al. Randomized prospective comparison of longterm results of onlay and sublay mesh repair techniques for incisional hernia. Turk J Surg 2018; 34:17–20.
106. Shehryar HA, Shahka MA, Javed MU. Comparison of sublay versus onlay mesh technique of ventral herniarepair. Pak J Med Health Sci 2018; 12:57–59.
107. Venclauskas L, Maleckas A, Kiudelis M. One-year follow-up after incisional hernia treatment: results of a prospective randomized study. Hernia 2010; 14:575–582.
108. Vix J, Meyer CH, Rohr S, et al. The treatment of incisional and abdominal hernia with a prosthesis in potentially infected tissues—a series of 47 cases. Hernia 1997; 1:156–161.
109. Warwick AM, Smart NJ, Daniels IR. Retro-rectus repair of complex inci-sional hernia leads to low recurrence rate. ANZ J Surg 2017; 87:591–594.
110. Welty G, Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, et al. Functional impairment and complaints following incisional hernia repair with different polypropylene meshes. Hernia 2001; 5:142–147.
111. Schwarz J, Reinpold W, Bittner R. Endoscopic mini/less open sublay technique (EMILOS)—a new technique for ventral hernia repair. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2017; 402:173–180.
112. Bittner JG, El-Hayek K, Strong AT, et al. Firsthumanuse of hybrid synthetic/biologic mesh in ventral hernia repair: a multicenter trial. Surg Endosc 2017; 32:1123–1130.
113. Bittner JG, El-Hayek K, Strong AT, et al. Erratum to: First human use of hybrid synthetic/biologic mesh in ventral hernia repair: a multicenter trial. Surg Endosc 2017; 32:1123–1130.
114. Heeney A, Hand F, Bates J, et al. Surgical mortality - ananalysis of all deaths within a general surgical department. Surgeon 2014; 12:121–128.
115. Study I, Spence J, LeManach Y, Chan MTV, et al. Vascular Events in Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation. Association between complications and death within 30 days after noncardiac surgery. CMAJ 2019; 191:E830–E837.
116. Davies SW, Turza KC, Sawyer RG, et al. A comparative analysis between laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair at a tertiary care center. Am Surg 2012; 78:888–892.
117. Kockerling F, Alam NN, Antoniou SA, et al. What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction? Hernia 2018; 22:249–269.
118. Kroese LF, Sneiders D, Kleinrensink GJ, et al. Comparing different modalities for the diagnosis of incisional hernia: a systematic review. Hernia 2018; 22:229–242.
119. Bloemen A, van Dooren P, Huizinga BF, et al. Comparison of ultrasonography and physical examination in the diagnosis of incisional hernia in a prospective study. Hernia 2012; 16:53–57.
120. Shubinets V, Carney MJ, Colen DL, et al. Management of infected mesh after abdominal hernia repair: systematic review and single-institution experience. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80:145–153.
121. Itatsu K, Yokoyama Y, Sugawara G, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for incisional hernia after abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 2014; 101:1439–1447.
122. Kockerling F. Recurrent incisional hernia repair-an overview. Front Surg 2019; 6:26.
123. Kockerling F, Hoffmann H, Adolf D, et al. Potential influencing factors on the outcome in incisional hernia repair: a registry-based multivariable analysis of 22,895 patients. Hernia 2021; 25:33–49.
124. Bernardi K, Adrales GL, Hope WW, et al. Abdominal wall reconstruction risk stratification tools: a systematic review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142:9S–20S.
125. Aube C, Pessaux P, Tuech JJ, et al. Detection of peritoneal adhesions using ultrasound examination for the evaluation of an innovative intraperitoneal mesh. Surg Endosc 2004; 18:131–135.
126. Domen A, Stabel C, Jawad R, et al. Postoperative ileus after laparoscopic primary and incisional abdominal hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh (DynaMesh(R)-IPOM versus Parietex Composite): a single institution experience. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2021; 406:209–218.
127. Balique JG, Benchetrit S, Bouillot JL, et al. Intraperitoneal treatment of incisional and umbilical hernias using an innovative composite mesh: four-year results of a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Hernia 2005; 9:68–74.
128. Matthews BD, Pratt BL, Pollinger HS, et al. Assessment of adhesion formation to intra-abdominal polypropylene mesh and polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. J Surg Res 2003; 114:126–132.
129. Kirchhoff S, Ladurner R, Kirchhoff C, et al. Detection of recurrent hernia and intraabdominal adhesions following incisional hernia repair: a functional cine MRI-study. Abdom Imaging 2010; 35:224–231.
130. ten Broek RP, Issa Y, van Santbrink EJ, et al. Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: systematic review and met-analysis. BMJ 2013; 347:f5588.
131. ten Broek RP, Schreinemacher MH, Jilesen AP, et al. Enterotomy risk in abdominal wall repair: a prospective study. Ann Surg 2012; 256:280–287.
132. Zinther NB, Zeuten A, Marinovskij E, et al. Functional cine MRI and transabdominal ultrasonography for the assessment of adhesions to implanted synthetic mesh 5-7 years after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Hernia 2010; 14:499–504.
133. Vanden Dop LM, Sneiders D, Kleinrensink GJ, et al. Infectious complication in relation to the prophylactic mesh position: the PRIMA trial revisited. J Am Coll Surg 2021; 232:738–745.
134. Sneiders D, de Smet GHJ, den Hartog F, et al. Medialization after combined anterior and posterior component separation in giant incisional hernia surgery, an anatomical study. Surgery 2021; 170:1749–1757.
135. Sneiders D, Yurtkap Y, Kroese LF, et al. Anatomical study comparing medialization after Rives-Stoppa, anterior component separation, and posterior component separation. Surgery 2019; 165:996–1002.
136. Petro CC, Posielski NM, Raigani S, et al. Risk factors for wound morbidity after open retromuscular (sublay) hernia repair. Surgery 2015; 158:1658–1668.
137. Weltz AS, Sibia US, Reza Zahiri H, et al. Operative outcomes after open abdominal wall reconstruction with retromuscular mesh fixation using fibrin glue versus transfascial sutures. Am Surg 2017; 83:937–942.

IPOM; mesh; onlay; recurrence; retro-rectus; Rives-Stoppa; ventral hernia repair

Supplemental Digital Content

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.