Comparison of medium-weight vs heavy-weight mesh in minimally invasive extraperitoneal ventral hernia repairs - Summary - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

Medium- Versus Heavyweight Mesh for Minimally Invasive Extraperitoneal Ventral Hernia Repair: A Comparative Study

  • By

  • Ayesha Siddiq

  • Nicolette M. Winder

  • Xinyan Zheng

  • Jeffrey Marks

  • Joshua L. Lyons

  • Samuel J. Zolin

  • October 15, 2026

Share

Objective:

To compare early and mid-term outcomes of heavyweight (HW) versus medium-weight (MW) mesh in minimally invasive extraperitoneal ventral hernia repair (VHR), with pragmatic recurrence at 1 year as the primary outcome.

Approach:
  • Design and data: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry data for adults undergoing laparoscopic or robotic retromuscular and/or preperitoneal VHR from 2013 through May 2025.
  • Eligibility: Included clean-wound repairs with successful fascial closure, uncoated permanent synthetic MW mesh (40–60 g/m²) or HW mesh (>75 g/m²), and at least 1 year of clinical or patient-reported follow-up.
  • Outcomes and analysis: The primary outcome was pragmatic recurrence at 1 year, combining available surgeon- and patient-reported assessments. Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications, recurrence, readmission, reoperation, pain, and quality of life. Propensity scores were use…
Key Findings:
  • The provided context describes the study rationale, methods, and planned outcomes but does not report comparative results for MW versus HW mesh.
Interpretation:

The study was designed to assess whether mesh weight is associated with recurrence and other outcomes after minimally invasive extraperitoneal VHR; no outcome estimates are available in the provided context.

Limitations:
  • The analysis was retrospective, despite use of prospectively collected registry data.
  • Eligibility required at least 1 year of follow-up, and recurrence assessments could be incomplete or discordant.
  • Follow-up rates were low beyond approximately 2 years, making the model unstable.
  • The provided context does not include study results.
Sources:

Original Source(s)

Related Content