ArticleSurgical endoscopy2014
A single institutional comparison of endoscopic and open abdominal component separation.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- A meta-analysis comparing open anterior component separation with posterior component separation and transversus abdominis release in the repair of midline ventral hernias.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Conventional versus endoscopic components separation technique: New anthropometric calculation for selection of surgical approachTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
- The effect of TISSEEL fibrin sealant on seroma formation following complex abdominal wall hernia repair: a single institutional review and derived cost analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe authors analyzed surgical factors and outcomes data in the largest single institutional study comparing endoscopic (ECS) and open component separation (OCS) in ventral hernia repairs (VHR).
methodsA prospectively maintained database was reviewed, identifying 76 patients who underwent component separation for VHR with mesh from 2010 to 2013: 34 OCS and 42 ECS. Comparisons were made for demographics, surgical risk factors, and peri-operative outcomes. Wound complications and hernia occurrence post-operatively were reviewed. Risk analyses were performed to determine the association of pre-operative risk factors with surgical site occurrences.
resultsTwenty-five ECS patients underwent subsequent laparoscopic hernia repair, and 17 underwent open repair. Operative time for ECS was longer than OCS (334 vs. 239 min; P < 0.001); however, there was no difference in length of stay (4 days in both groups, P = 0.64) and estimated blood loss (ECS: 97 vs. OCS: 93 cc, P = 0.847). In a sub-analysis of ECS patients, those who underwent laparoscopic hernia repair had a 96 min shorter operative time (P < 0.001) and lower EBL (63 vs. 147 cc, P < 0.001) than open repair. Wound complications were 24% in the ECS (n = 10) and 32% in OCS group (n = 11). There was one midline hernia recurrence in the ECS group (mean follow-up of 8 months, range 0.5-34.5 months) and no hernia recurrences in the OCS group (mean follow-up 10 months, range 0.5-30 months). Three of the patients in the ECS group developed new lateral abdominal wall hernias post-operatively.
conclusionsThe ECS group had a significantly longer operative time than the OCS group. Post-operative wound complications were similar between ECS and OCS groups. Patients in the ECS group who underwent subsequent laparoscopic VHR had a shorter operative time and blood loss than open repair.
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.