An interventional study of Suturing of hernia defect with non-absorbable suture and Suturing of hernia defect with slowly absorbable suture in Ventral Incisional Hernia, sponsored by Ersta Diakoni. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Sweden. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-23.
Sponsored by Ersta Diakoni · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Incisional hernia is a common condition after abdominal surgery and is often associated with pain, impaired physical function, and reduced quality of life. It may also be complicated by incarceration and strangulation, with the potential for acute and life-threatening events. Surgical repair is the only curative treatment, and in many cases requires complex abdominal wall reconstruction, with substantial morbidity and a risk of recurrence.
In recent years, minimally invasive laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery has gained an increasingly important role in the treatment of ventral hernias. Retromuscular mesh placement combined with closure of the fascial defect has been developed to combine biomechanical principles from open Rives-Stoppa reconstruction with the potential benefits of minimally invasive techniques.
A key knowledge gap is which suture material should be used for defect closure: non-absorbable sutures, which provide permanent mechanical stability but leave permanent foreign material, or slowly absorbable sutures, which degrade over time and may reduce suture-related complications. In clinical practice, the choice is often driven by local tradition and surgeon preference rather than robust evidence.
Evidence from abdominal wall closure after elective laparotomy supports the use of slowly absorbable suture material; however, those results cannot be directly transferred to minimally invasive ventral hernia surgery where mesh reinforcement, biomechanics, and healing processes differ. Randomized multicenter trials specifically evaluating the impact of suture material in laparoscopic or robot-assisted retromuscular ventral/incisional hernia repair are lacking.
Against this background, the present trial compares slowly absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures in minimally invasive retromuscular incisional hernia repair, focusing on an objective long-term endpoint. CT-verified recurrence at 2 years was chosen as the primary endpoint to provide a robust and clinically meaningful measure of treatment effect. The hierarchical hypothesis framework (primary test of superiority and secondary test of non-inferiority) allows a clinically useful interpretation even if no statistically significant advantage is demonstrated.
Although incisional hernia is a subset of ventral hernias and shares pathophysiological and surgical principles with other ventral hernias, this trial is restricted to incisional hernia, where recurrence is more common and suture choice is expected to be more decisive. This restriction aims to achieve a more homogeneous study population and improve internal validity
A detailed descpription of the study is presented in the attached study protocol.
Background and Rationale Incisional hernia is a frequent postoperative complication associated with pain, impaired physical capacity and diminished quality of life. Complex abdominal wall reconstruction has substantial morbidity and recurrence risk. Minimally invasive retromuscular repair (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) has become increasingly used, combining biomechanical advantages of Rives-Stoppa principles with minimally invasive benefits. A key knowledge gap concerns the optimal suture material for fascial closure. Non-absorbable sutures provide permanent mechanical support but remain as lifelong foreign material. Slowly absorbable sutures may reduce suture-related complications but lose strength over time. Evidence from open laparotomy cannot be directly transferred to minimally invasive retromuscular procedures. No randomized multicentre trials have directly compared these suture strategies in laparoscopic or robot-assisted retromuscular incisional hernia repair. The TAFAR trial aims to address this gap, focusing on CT verified recurrence as a robust, objective measure of long-term outcome.
Objectives and Hypotheses Primary Objective
To determine whether suture material (non-absorbable vs slowly absorbable) influences the risk of CT verified incisional hernia recurrence at 2 years after minimally invasive retromuscular repair. A hierarchical hypothesis framework is applied:
Secondary Objectives Comparison of postoperative complications (30 days), patient-reported outcomes (pain, function, quality of life), long-term clinical outcomes (reoperations, mesh-related events, bulging), perioperative variables, and exploratory health-economic measures.
Trial Design:
A prospective, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre clinical trial with 1:1 allocation. Hierarchical testing of recurrence at 2 years (superiority → non inferiority). Structured follow up at baseline, 30 days, 1, 2, and 3 years, with CT at 2 years.
Study Setting:
National Swedish multicentre trial conducted at hospitals experienced in minimally invasive retromuscular incisional hernia surgery. Clinical practices follow local routines, with standardized follow-up and CT protocol.
Sample Size:
Superiority analysis assumed recurrence rates of 10% vs 5%; required n≈435/group. Non inferiority (margin 5 percentage points) required n≈446/group. The stricter requirement (NI) was adopted. With \~10% expected attrition at 2 year CT, total enrollment target is 980 participants.
Participant Timeline \& Assessments:
Data collection at baseline, intraoperatively, 30 days, 1 year, 2 years (including CT), and 3 years. A SPIRIT compliant schedule outlines enrolment, interventions, and assessments.
Randomization and Blinding:
Computer generated 1:1 randomization, stratified by centre, hernia width (W3 yes/no), and lateral location (yes/no). Allocation concealed until induction of anesthesia.
Blinding: Surgeons are unblinded; participants are blinded to suture type until 3 year follow up. Radiological assessment is blinded.
Data Collection, management, and quality assurance:
Data collected prospectively via paper or electronic CRFs, later consolidated in an electronic database. Baseline, perioperative, and follow up variables are standardized. Data pseudonymization, role based access, secure storage and encrypted transfers are implemented. Data retained for 10 years.
Statistical Method:
Primary analysis: Intention to treat (primary) and per protocol (sensitivity) approaches. Logistic regression adjusted for stratification variables (centre, W3, lateral hernia). Results expressed as risk difference and relative measures with 95% CI.
Secondary analysis: Includes logistic regression for complications, mixed models for PROMs, and descriptive or time to event analyses for long-term outcomes.
Subgroup and exploratory analyses Pre specified subgroups: hernia width (W3 vs W1 2) and location (lateral vs medial). Exploratory evaluation of non randomized factors (robotic vs laparoscopic, closure of posterior fascia). Missing data handled via complete case analysis, with multiple imputation sensitivity analyses.
Ethics and dissemination The trial adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki and Swedish regulations. Both suture types are standard medical products; risk is considered low. Radiation exposure from CT is minimized. Participation is voluntary with informed consent. Results will be published in peer reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings. Lay summaries available to participants
Trial governance and monitoring Steering committee and lead investigators oversee study conduct. No planned interim analysis or independent DSMB; safety events graded ≥III are reported. Targeted monitoring may occur. Protocol amendments documented and submitted to ethics authority as required.
226 studies on the registry are indexed under Incisional Hernia; 53 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 980 is above the median of 107 across 142 interventional studies indexed under Incisional Hernia.
Browse Incisional Hernia studies →Ersta Diakoni is the lead sponsor of 3 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Hernia defect sutured with non-absorbable suture
Procedure: Suturing of hernia defect with non-absorbable suture
Hernia defect sutured with slowly absorbable suture
Procedure: Suturing of hernia defect with slowly absorbable suture
During retromuscular minimally invasive surgery for incisional hernia, the hernia defect is closed using the assigned suture type
During retromuscular minimally invasive surgery for incisional hernia, the hernia defect is closed using the assigned suture type
Primary Outcome Measure - Number of patients with a CT-verified recurrence up to 2 years after surgery
The primary objective is to evaluate whether the choice of suture material for fascial defect closure in minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) retromuscular incisional hernia repair affects the risk of recurrence, defined as CT-verified recurrence 2 years after surgery. The trial uses a hierarchical framework: first, superiority of non-absorbable versus slowly absorbable suture is tested for 2-year recurrence. If superiority is not demonstrated, non-inferiority of slowly absorbable versus non-absorbable suture is tested within a pre-specified clinically relevant margin.
Time frame: From day of surgery up to 24 months postoperatively
Perioperative outcomes
Perioperative outcomes, including operating time, needof conversion to open surgery and any occurences of intraoperative complications (i.e. major bleeding, bowel injury)
Time frame: Recorded at day of surgery
Length of hospital stay
Nunmber of days from admission to discharge from hospital, alternatively proportion of patients not discharged after 30 days postoperatively
Time frame: From admission day (usually day of surgery) up to 30 days postoperatively
Short-term postoperative complications
Short-term postoperative complications, including surgical site occurrence/infection and other hernia-related complications (SSO/SSI, seroma, hematoma), classified using Clavien-Dindo, within 30 days.
Time frame: From day of surgery to 30 days postoperatively
Clinical long-term outcomes
Reoperations (any indication), mesh-related complications, bulging and other hernia-related long-term complications from day of surgery up to 3 years.
Time frame: From day of surgery up to 36 months postoperatively
Patient-reported long-term outcomes
Patient-reported long-term outcomes on pain, function and health-related quality of life measured using validated instruments (VHPQ and/or NRS for pain; Hernia-Q for quality of life) at baseline and at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years and 3 years.
Time frame: From baseline to 36 months postoperatively
Health economics
Resource use and exploratory health-economic measures based on healthcare contacts, follow-up visits and reoperations during follow-up
Time frame: From time of surgery up to 36 months postoperatively
Plan to share: Yes — All IPD that underlie results in a publication
Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form, Clinical study report, Analytic code
Time frame: 2033 t0 2043
Access criteria: Data can be shared for systematic reviews and meta- analyses
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.