Mercedes incision and risk of incisional hernia following liver transplantation: A systematic review

Table 1 Methodological index for non-randomized studies score for included studies table

Reference	MINORS score (max 24)
Perrakis et al[1] (2020)	18
Cos et al[2] (2020)	20
Nevo et al[3] (2024)	19
Garmpis et al[4] (2019)	16
Butler et al[5] (2020)	21
Smith et al[6] (2024)	17
Donataccio et al[7] (2006)	15
Zarbaliyev et al[10] (2021)	18

MINORS: Methodological index for non-randomized studies.

Table 2 Summary of key study-level features, including design, sample size, incision types compared, and incisional hernia outcomes

Reference	Design	Sample size	Follow-up	Incision type	Incisional hernia rate
Perrakis et al[1] (2020)	Retrospective cohort	176	Mean 42 months	Mercedes vs chevron	32.4% vs 19.3%
Cos et al[2] (2020)	Retrospective cohort	231	Median 36 months	Mercedes vs J-shaped	27.5% vs 15.6%
Nevo et al[3] (2024)	Retrospective cohort	312	Mean 24 months	Mercedes vs chevron	29.2% vs 18.4%
Garmpis et al[4] (2019)	Review-based cohort	150	Not stated	Various	35.0% (overall)
Butler et al[5] (2020)	Systematic review/meta-analysis	891 (aggregated)	Varied	Various	Range: 5%–38%
Smith et al[6] (2024)	Retrospective cost analysis	210	12 months	Mixed	25.2% overall
Donataccio et al[7] (2006)	Prospective feasibility	120	12–18 months	Right subcostal (J)	12.5%
Zarbaliyev et al[10] (2021)	Retrospective comparative	195	24 months	Mercedes vs J-shaped	28.4% vs 16.7%