Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 441

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

Liang, Mike K., Holihan, Julie L., Itani, Kamal, Alawadi, Zeinab M., Gonzalez, Juan R. Flores, Askenasy, Erik P., Ballecer, Conrad, Chong, Hui Sen, Goldblatt, Matthew I., Greenberg, Jacob A., Harvin, John A., Keith, Jerrod N., Martindale, Robert G., Orenstein, Sean, Richmond, Bryan, Roth, John Scott, Szotek, Paul, Towfigh, Shirin, Tsuda, Shawn, Vaziri, Khashayar, Berger, David H.·2017·Annals of Surgery

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0000000000001701

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 441

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.