<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>408(1)</volume><submitter>Kroh A</submitter><funding>Ethicon</funding><funding>RWTH Aachen University</funding><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Study design&lt;/h4>A randomized, controlled, prospective multicenter clinical trial with a parallel group design was initiated in eight surgical centers to compare a large-pore polypropylene mesh (Ultrapro&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup>) to a small-pore polypropylene mesh (Premilene&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup>) within a standardized retromuscular meshplasty for incisional hernia repair.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Between 2004 and 2006, patients with a fascial defect with a minimum diameter of 4 cm after vertical midline laparotomy were recruited for the trial. Patients underwent retromuscular meshplasty with either a large-pore or a small-pore mesh to identify the superiority of the large-pore mesh. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 5 and 21 days and 4, 12, and 24 months after surgery. A clinical examination, a modified short form 3</pubmed_abstract><journal>Langenbeck's archives of surgery</journal><pagination>22</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9836964</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>No difference in outcomes between large- and small-pore meshes in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial investigating open retromuscular meshplasty for incisional hernia repair.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9836964</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Zufacher M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kroh A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Eickhoff R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Heise D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ulmer F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Conze J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Helmedag M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hilgers RD</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Binnebosel M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Neumann UP</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>No difference in outcomes between large- and small-pore meshes in a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial investigating open retromuscular meshplasty for incisional hernia repair.</name><description>&lt;h4>Study design&lt;/h4>A randomized, controlled, prospective multicenter clinical trial with a parallel group design was initiated in eight surgical centers to compare a large-pore polypropylene mesh (Ultrapro&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup>) to a small-pore polypropylene mesh (Premilene&lt;sup>®&lt;/sup>) within a standardized retromuscular meshplasty for incisional hernia repair.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Between 2004 and 2006, patients with a fascial defect with a minimum diameter of 4 cm after vertical midline laparotomy were recruited for the trial. Patients underwent retromuscular meshplasty with either a large-pore or a small-pore mesh to identify the superiority of the large-pore mesh. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 5 and 21 days and 4, 12, and 24 months after surgery. A clinical examination, a modified short form 3</description><dates><release>2023-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2023 Jan</publication><modification>2025-04-18T16:13:09.872Z</modification><creation>2025-04-07T03:17:46.849Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9836964</accession><cross_references><pubmed>36635466</pubmed><doi>10.1007/s00423-022-02751-x</doi></cross_references></HashMap>