Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Nonabsorbable tacks vs nonabsorbable tacks plus nonabsorbable sutures

Recurrence · People with primary ventral or incisional hernia repair

1 finding from 1 review

Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 185 participants
Very low

Nonabsorbable tacks vs nonabsorbable sutures

Primary outcome 2: Clinical recurrence at 6 months · People with primary ventral or incisional hernia repair

It is very uncertain whether nonabsorbable tacks changes recurrence (6 months) compared with nonabsorbable sutures (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1 [0.07, 14.79]
1 study · 36 participants
Very low

Nonabsorbable tacks plus absorbable sutures vs nonabsorbable tacks only

Recurrence · People with primary ventral or incisional hernia repair

It is very uncertain whether nonabsorbable tacks plus absorbable sutures changes recurrence (3 month) compared with nonabsorbable tacks only (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.07 [0.07, 16.72]
1 study · 116 participants
Very low

Nonabsorbable tacks plus absorbable sutures vs nonabsorbable tacks plus nonabsorbable sutures

Recurrence · People with primary ventral or incisional hernia repair

It is very uncertain whether nonabsorbable tacks plus absorbable sutures changes recurrence (3 month) compared with nonabsorbable tacks plus nonabsorbable sutures (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 3 [0.12, 72.1]
1 study · 112 participants
Very low