The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ventral Hernia Management: Expert Consensus Guided by Systematic Review
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To achieve consensus on the best practices in the management of ventral hernias (VH). BACKGROUND: Management patterns for VH are heterogeneous, often with little supporting evidence or correlation with existing evidence. METHODS: A systematic review identified the highest level of evidence available for each topic. A panel of expert hernia-surgeons was assembled. Email questionnaires, evidence review, panel discussion, and iterative voting was performed. Consensus was when all experts agreed on a management strategy. RESULTS: Experts agreed that complications with VH repair (VHR) increase in obese patients (grade A), current smokers (grade A), and patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) ≥ 6.5% (grade B). Elective VHR was not recommended for patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m (grade C), current smokers (grade A), or patients with HbA1C ≥ 8.0% (grade B). Patients with BMI= 30-50 kg/m or HbA1C = 6.5-8.0% require individualized interventions to reduce surgical risk (grade C, grade B). Nonoperative management was considered to have a low-risk of short-term morbidity (grade C). Mesh reinforcement was recommended for repair of hernias ≥ 2 cm (grade A). There were several areas where high-quality data were limited, and no consensus could be reached, including mesh type, component separation technique, and management of complex patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was consensus, supported by grade A-C evidence, on patient selection, the safety of short-term nonoperative management, and mesh reinforcement, among experts; there was limited evidence and broad variability in practice patterns in all other areas of practice. The lack of strong evidence and expert consensus on these topics has identified gaps in knowledge where there is need of further evidence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/pdz9-th90 · Cited by 4,500
Lindström, D., Azodi, O. S., Wladis, A., Tønnesen, H., Linder, S., Nåsell, H., Ponzer, S., & Adami, J. (2008) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3181889d0d · Cited by 530
Cited by
Obesity and Ventral Hernia Repair: Is There Success in Staging?
Veilleux, E., & Lutfi, R. (2020) · Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques · doi:10.1089/lap.2020.0265 · Cited by 27
Management of complications after appendectomy: Literature review
Harriott, C. B., & Sadava, E. E. (2024) · Current Problems in Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.cpsurg.2024.101505 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Liang, M. K., Holihan, J. L., Itani, K., Alawadi, Z. M., Gonzalez, J. R. F., Askenasy, E. P., Ballecer, C., Chong, H. S., Goldblatt, M. I., Greenberg, J. A., Harvin, J. A., Keith, J. N., Martindale, R. G., Orenstein, S., Richmond, B., Roth, J. S., Szotek, P., Towfigh, S., Tsuda, S., Vaziri, K., & Berger, D. H.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 265
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 80-89
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2334781872
- Cited by
- 441
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 33.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
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: Ventral Hernia Management: Expert Consensus Guided by Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0000000000001701
- The paper
- Liang, M. K., Holihan, J. L., Itani, K., Alawadi, Z. M., Gonzalez, J. R. F., Askenasy, E. P., Ballecer, C., Chong, H. S., Goldblatt, M. I., Greenberg, J. A., Harvin, J. A., Keith, J. N., Martindale, R. G., Orenstein, S., Richmond, B., Roth, J. S., Szotek, P., Towfigh, S., Tsuda, S., . . . Berger, D. H. (2017). Ventral Hernia Management: Expert Consensus Guided by Systematic Review. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001701
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.