ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2014
Endoscopic component separation for laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair: a single institutional comparison of outcomes and review of the technique.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- One operation, two challenges: systematic review and single arm proportional meta-analysis of concurrent enterocutaneous fistula takedown and ventral hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Minimally invasive component separation technique for large ventral hernia: which is the best choice? A systematic literature review.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic methodological review of non-randomised interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Component Separation vs. Bridged Repair for Large Ventral Hernias: A Multi-Institutional Risk-Adjusted Comparison, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis.Surgical infections · 2016Pooled it
- Beyond acronyms: a domain-based structural analysis of abdominal wall hernia repair techniques in the contemporary literature.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- How Reproducible Are Abdominal Wall Surgical Techniques? A Methodological Assessment of Technical Reporting in the Contemporary Literature.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
- Conventional versus endoscopic components separation technique: New anthropometric calculation for selection of surgical approachTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
- How we do it: down to up posterior components separation.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo our knowledge, there are limited small case series reports on endoscopic component separation (ECS) and no single institutional study comparing the difference in outcomes between laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repairs following endoscopic component separation.
methodsA single institutional retrospective review was performed, identifying 42 patients who underwent endoscopic component separation at a single institution by a single surgeon for ventral hernia repair with prosthesis from 2010 to 2013. Seventeen patients underwent subsequent open ventral hernia repair (OHR) and 25 underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LHR). Demographics, surgical factors, wound complications and hernia occurrence post-operatively were reviewed.
resultsSurgical factors/demographics were similar between groups. All patients achieved primary fascial and skin closure. Operative time for the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than the open group (278 vs. 378 min; P = 0.0001), and there was a trend towards a shorter hospital stay in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 4 days; open, 5 days; P = 0.063). Estimated blood loss per case with ECS and subsequent laparoscopy was significantly lower than in the open cases (63 vs. 147 cc; P = 0.0017). In both groups, wound complications occurred in five patients (laparoscopic, 20 %; open, 29 %; P = 0.71). There was one midline hernia recurrence and two lateral abdominal wall hernia occurrences post-operatively in the laparoscopic group, whereas there were no midline and one lateral wall hernia occurrence in the open group.
conclusionsPatients undergoing endoscopic component separation with subsequent laparoscopic fascial reapproximation had a significantly shorter operative time and estimated blood loss when compared with open fascial reapproximation. Wound complications were similar in both groups although there were a greater number of hernia occurrences post-operatively in the laparoscopic group, though of no statistical significance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.