• Users Online: 158
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

 Table of Contents  
CORRESPONDENCE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 55  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 161

Comment on “onlay and sublay (retrorectus) mesh repair for incisional hernia”


1 Private Academic Consultant, Bangkok, Thailand
2 Department of Community Medicine, Dr. DY Patil University, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission04-Mar-2022
Date of Acceptance13-Mar-2022
Date of Web Publication1-Aug-2022

Correspondence Address:
Pathum Sookaromdee
Private Academic Consultant, 111 Bangkok 112 Bangkok 103300
Thailand
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/fjs.fjs_132_22

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Sookaromdee P, Wiwanitkit V. Comment on “onlay and sublay (retrorectus) mesh repair for incisional hernia”. Formos J Surg 2022;55:161

How to cite this URL:
Sookaromdee P, Wiwanitkit V. Comment on “onlay and sublay (retrorectus) mesh repair for incisional hernia”. Formos J Surg [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 14];55:161. Available from: https://www.e-fjs.org/text.asp?2022/55/4/161/353065



Dear Editor,

We would like to share ideas on the report “comparative analysis of onlay (OL) and sublay (SL) (retrorectus) mesh repair for incisional hernia (width ≤10 cm) of the abdominal wall: A single-center experience.[1]” Kumar et al. concluded that “SR seems to be the better technique taking into account the overall morbidity, although the need for multi-centric trials with patient-centered outcomes should be highlighted to settle the debate.[1]” We agree that there might be a difference in the outcome of OL and SL approaches for the management of incisional hernia. The recent publication from meta-analysis showed that OL was associated with significantly poorer outcomes.[2] The current study gives supporting clinical evidence. However, it should recognize the possible confounding factors in this retrospective study. The preoperation criteria for assigning patients for OL and SL approaches might relate to the morbidity outcome. The type of incisional hernia is also associated with the outcome of surgical management.[3] In addition, the patient might have different physiological backgrounds and underlying/concurrent conditions that can affect the outcome. A subgroup analysis based on the different backgrounds of the patient might give a clearer picture for comparing both approaches.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Kumar M, Kumar M, Jha AK, Arora A, Sreepriya PP, Niroop BS, et al. Comparative analysis of onlay and sublay (retrorectus) mesh repair for incisional hernia (width≤10 cm) of abdominal wall: A single-center experience. Formosan J Surg 2022;55:1-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Köckerling F, Lammers B. Open intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) technique for incisional hernia repair. Front Surg 2018;5:66.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Issa M, Noureldin K, Elgadi A, Abdelaziz A, Badawi M, Makram M. Evaluation of the sublay mesh repair outcomes in different types of ventral hernia. Cureus 2021;13:e20590.  Back to cited text no. 3
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed124    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded19    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]