Synopsis: Incisional hernia remains a frequent complication of abdominal surgery with significant morbidity to patients and costs to society. High-risk patient groups have an incidence of incisional hernia up to 30%. This study sought to explore the effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement among two high-risk groups of patients, those with abdominal aortic aneurysm and those with BMI above 27kg/m2. The study enrolled 498 patients in 11 hospitals in Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands from 2009 to 2012. In addition to falling into the previously detailed high-risk groups, patients had to be over 18 years and undergoing elective midline laparotomy. Exclusion criteria included emergency surgery, prior incisional hernia, participation in other trials, life expectancy less than 24 months (the follow-up period of the study), pregnancy, immune suppression within 2 weeks before surgery, and bovine allergy. Patients were allocated to treatment group after completion of the abdominal portion of the operation and before closure. The closure was performed by the operating surgeon, which included general surgeons, vascular surgeons, urologists, and gynecologists. The primary sutured closure was performed with #1 MonoPlus (polydioxanone, same material as PDS) with a recommended 4:1 suture length:wound length ratio. Mesh reinforcement was performed with a lightweight polypropylene mesh with a recommended 3 cm overlap, secured with Tisseel fibrin glue after creating either flaps above the anterior rectus fascia (onlay) or between the posterior rectus fascia/peritoneum and rectus muscle (sublay). Patients were followed for up to 2 years with clinical exams and, in most cases, radiologic examination (70% of the 376 patients who completed follow-up) to detect incisional hernia. 92 (19%) of 480 patients developed incisional hernia during the 2 years of follow-up, including 31% of the primary suture group, 13% of the onlay group, and 18% of the sublay group. The difference in hernia incidence was significantly different only between primary suture and onlay mesh (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.2-0.69). For primary suture versus sublay mesh, the threshold for statistical significance was close, but not met (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.3-1.0). The authors noted that “non-equivalence of the experimental treatments cannot be ruled out” regarding onlay versus sublay (OR 1.39, 0.73-2.65). The only increased complication related to onlay position was increased early seroma rate, which was reportedly of no clinical consequence. Notably, in the subgroup analysis, only the comparisons between mesh reinforcement (both onlay and sublay) and primary suture in the AAA patients were statistically significant, while all comparisons in the BMI>27 subgroup fell short of a p value below 0.05. Care should be taken to apply these results only to the specific patients and clinical situations included in the study, with some skepticism in the applicability of this technique to obese patients. Further, it is important to recognize key technical factors from the study, including the lack of use of the small-bites technique described in the STITCH trial (2015, published well-after the enrollment period of this trial) and the use of fibrin glue for mesh fixation.