The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 18 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
“Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh”
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: Polypropylene mesh is available in the configurations: knitted polypropylene (KP) and nonwoven polypropylene (NWP). Although there is robust literature regarding KP, there is a knowledge gap in the long-term performance of NWP in ventral hernia repair (VHR). We recently reported one-month outcomes of KP versus NWP mesh after VHR; however, long-term outcomes of NWP were not evaluated. This study aims to describe these long-term outcomes. Methods: Patients who underwent open, clean VHR with Surgimesh WN, a heavyweight NWP mesh, from 2022 to 2025 with one year follow-up were included. Outcomes such as SSO (surgical site occurrence), SSI (surgical site infection), SSOPI (surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention), and hernia recurrence were reported at 30-day, one-year, and two-years. Hernia recurrence was defined pragmatically, a composite of patient-reported bulges, clinical exam, and cross-sectional imaging. Results: 160 patients were included. Ventral hernias had a median width of 15 cm. At 30 days, there were 20 SSOs, six SSIs, eight SSOPIs, and no hernia recurrences. At one year, there were three SSOs, one SSI, one SSOPI, and no reoperations for recurrence. At two years ( N = 35), there was one SSO and no hernia recurrences. Conclusion: Our early experience with Surgimesh WN indicates it is a safe and effective for VHR. NWP mesh is especially useful given the 50cmx50cm available for large VHRs. Long term follow-up in larger cohorts is needed to support these findings and explore potential advantages of NWP.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
In a retrospective ACHQC review of 160 patients undergoing open, clean retromuscular ventral hernia repair with heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh (Surgimesh WN), short- and longer-term wound morbidity and hernia recurrence were low. The authors conclude this mesh is a safe and effective option, especially because it is available in large sizes up to 50 cm × 50 cm, but call for larger long-term cohorts.
Key findings
- Among 160 patients with median hernia width 15 cm [IQR 12, 19], 30-day outcomes (N = 115) included 20 SSOs (17%), 6 SSIs (5.2%), 8 SSOPIs (7%), and 0 hernia recurrences.
- At 1 year, 121/160 (76%) had follow-up data; there were 6 pragmatic recurrences, 4 clinical recurrences (3.6%, N = 110), 5 patient-reported recurrences (19%, N = 26), and no reoperations for recurrence. One-year wound morbidity (N = 110) was 3 SSOs (2.8%), 1 SSI (0.9%), and 1 SSOPI (0.9%); disease-progression-free survival was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91–0.99).
- At 2 years, 37/86 eligible patients (43%) had follow-up data; there were 0 pragmatic recurrences and 0 reoperations. Among N = 35 with 2-year wound data, 1 SSO (2.9%) was reported.
- No mesh infections or mesh excisions were reported at 1 and 2 years postoperatively.
Methods
- Retrospective review of patients undergoing open VHR with Surgimesh WN at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation between January 2022 and March 2025; only CDC wound class I (clean) repairs were included, and the ACHQC registry was queried for patients eligible for at least 1-year follow-up.
- Outcomes included SSO, SSI, SSOPI, and hernia recurrence at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years; recurrence was defined pragmatically as a composite of patient-reported bulges, clinical exam, and cross-sectional imaging.
- Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographics and operative characteristics at baseline and follow-up.
Limitations
- Stated by the authors: retrospective, registry-based ACHQC analysis dependent on surgeon-reported outcomes, with potential bias and inaccurate or missing variables; possible selection bias because not all patients received heavyweight NWP mesh; results from a high-volume hernia center may not generalize; 2-year follow-up was available for only 35 of 160 patients; cost data for Surgimesh WN, especially the 50 cm × 50 cm device, were unavailable.
- Evident from the text: there was no concurrent comparator group within this study, so comparisons with heavyweight knitted polypropylene rely on prior literature rather than randomized or matched internal controls.
- Evident from the text: 2-year recurrence estimates are based on very small subgroups, including patient-reported recurrence data available for only N = 3 at 2 years.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 1 Not valid · 16 Not checked · 41 Own results and interpretations
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Regarding open, clean retromuscular VHR, heavyweight polypropylene has distinct advantages over mediumweight mesh.”
§ “Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh” > Discussion
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [1] Krpata DM, Petro CC, Prabhu AS et al (2021) Effect of hernia mesh weights on postoperative patient-related and clinical outcomes after open ventral hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 156(12):1085. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.4309 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports no discernible clinical or patient-reported difference between the mesh weights, rather than distinct advantages for heavyweight mesh. Although the authors prefer heavyweight mesh in clean cases, they frame durability as a concern requiring long-term follow-up, not an established advantage. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked yetcites [2] Maskal S, Miller B, Ellis R et al (2023) Mediumweight polypropylene mesh fractures after open retromuscular ventral hernia repair: incidence and associated risk factors. Surg Endosc 37(7):5438–5443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10039-4 source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“one (0.9%) SSI”
§ “Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh” > Results
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At two years postoperatively (N = 35), one SSO (2.9%) was reported.”
§ “Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh” > Results
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No pragmatic recurrences or reoperations were observed at two years.”
§ “Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh” > Results
plainn = 35- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were four (3.6%, N = 110) clinical recurrences”
§ “Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh” > Results
plainn = 110- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
26 more claims
Create a free account to see all 58 claims and to verify the 17 references still open.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 11
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ “Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh” > Discussion
“two-year follow-up was available for only 35 of 160 patients”
§ “Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh” > Results
“86 patients were eligible for two-year follow-up, and 37 (43%) had two-year follow-up data available.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“At one year postoperatively (N = 110), wound morbidity was reported as three (2.8%) SSOs”
§ “Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh” > Results
Reported 2.8 · recomputed 2.727273
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| Smoker (current within 1 month) | 21 (14) |”
§ “Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh” > Results
Reported 14 · recomputed 13.125
Citations
Cites
Brown, C., & Finch, J. (2010) · The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England · doi:10.1308/003588410x12664192076296 · Cited by 386
Krpata, D. M., Schmotzer, B. J., Flocke, S., Jin, J., Blatnik, J. A., Ermlich, B., Novitsky, Y. W., & Rosen, M. J. (2012) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.06.412 · Cited by 297
Self-citationPoulose, B. K., Roll, S., Murphy, J. W., Matthews, B. D., Todd Heniford, B., Voeller, G., Hope, W. W., Goldblatt, M. I., Adrales, G. L., & Rosen, M. J. (2016) · Hernia · doi:10.1007/s10029-016-1477-7 · Cited by 216
Self-citationSSI, SSO, SSE, SSOPI: the elusive language of complications in hernia surgery
DeBord, J. R., Novitsky, Y. W., Fitzgibbons, R., Miserez, M., & Montgomery, A. K. (2018) · Hernia · doi:10.1007/s10029-018-1813-1 · Cited by 117
Krpata, D. M., Petro, C. C., Prabhu, A. S., Tastaldi, L., Zolin, S., Fafaj, A., Rosenblatt, S., Poulose, B. K., Pierce, R. A., Warren, J. A., et al. (2021) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.4309 · Cited by 78
Self-citationMaskal, S., Miller, B., Ellis, R., Phillips, S., Prabhu, A., Beffa, L., Krpata, D., Rosenblatt, S., Rosen, M., & Petro, C. (2023) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-023-10039-4 · Cited by 23
Self-citationRepair of massive ventral hernias with “quilted” mesh
Posielski, N. M., Yee, S. T., Majumder, A., Orenstein, S. B., Prabhu, A. S., & Novitsky, Y. W. (2015) · Hernia · doi:10.1007/s10029-015-1375-4 · Cited by 22
Self-citationMaskal, S. M., Ellis, R. C., Mali, O., Lau, B., Messer, N., Zheng, X., Miller, B. T., Petro, C. C., Prabhu, A. S., Rosen, M. J., et al. (2024) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-024-10716-y · Cited by 18
Self-citationOliveira Trindade, B., Marcolin, P., Brandao, G. R., Bueno Motter, S., Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo, S., Diana Mao, R.-M., & Lu, R. (2023) · Hernia · doi:10.1007/s10029-023-02865-1 · Cited by 13
The importance of patient-reported outcomes in pragmatic clinical trials
Jim, H., Brady‐Nicholls, R., & Hershman, D. L. (2023) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djad037 · Cited by 5
Cited by
Winder, N. M., Lyons, J., Siddiq, A., Blackman, M. H., Marks, J., & Zolin, S. J. (2026) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2026.110649
Kacem, T., Khoffi, F., Girault, É., Kapsa, A., Barbet, R., Msahli, S., & Heim, F. (2026) · Textiles · doi:10.3390/textiles6040131
Metadata
- Authors
- Risser, K. M., Schmidt, E. M., Woo, K. P., Beffa, L. R. A., Prabhu, A. S., Krpata, D. M., Rosen, M. J., Petro, C. C., & Miller, B. T.
- Affiliations
- Cleveland Clinic (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Risser, Kayleigh May
- ORCID
- Venue
- Hernia
- Published
- 2026-02-17
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 95-95
- ISSN
- 1248-9204 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12913288
- OpenAlex
- W7129259109
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 8.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Hernia (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Abdominal Surgery and Complications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Stoma care and complications
- Keywords
- ventral hernia repair, heavyweight mesh, hernia recurrence, surgical site infection, long-term outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Female, Hernia, Ventral, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Polypropylenes, Recurrence, Surgical Mesh, Surgical Wound Infection, Treatment Outcome, Herniorrhaphy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
The claim verdicts this report counts are experimental: their accuracy is not yet measured.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh”. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10029-026-03597-8
- The paper
- Risser, K. M., Schmidt, E. M., Woo, K. P., Beffa, L. R. A., Prabhu, A. S., Krpata, D. M., Rosen, M. J., Petro, C. C., & Miller, B. T. (2026). “Long-term outcomes of ventral hernia repair using heavyweight non-woven polypropylene mesh”. Hernia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-026-03597-8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
