SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2015
Endoscopic versus open component separation: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prehabilitation of complex ventral hernia patients with Botulinum: a systematic review of the quantifiable effects of Botulinum.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Minimally invasive component separation technique for large ventral hernia: which is the best choice? A systematic literature review.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic review of transversus abdominis release in complex abdominal wall reconstruction.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
- Comprehensive bibliometric and visualized analysis of research on incisional hernia and component separation from 1996 to 2023.JPRAS open · 2025Review
- Revisiting large complex ventral hernia repair: multimodal hybrid technique deploying preoperative Botulinum Toxin A injection, laparoscopic anterior components separation and open mesh repair.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Contemporary Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: Emerging Techniques and Trends.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Robotic approach in complex ventral hernias: anterior component separation technique.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2023Article
- Ventral hernia repair in conjunction with LIPO-ABDOMINOPLASTY in overweight patients: A comprehensive approach.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Endoscopic transversus abdominis release in the treatment of midline incisional hernias: a prospective single-center observational study on 100 patients.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Observational
- Inguinal single-port approach of endoscopic component separation for abdominal wall defects: A case series.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- An Evaluation of the Evidence Guiding Adult Midline Ventral Hernia Repair.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- [Intraoperative fascial traction (IFT) for treatment of large ventral hernias : A retrospective analysis of 50 cases].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2022Article
- Incisional hernia repair with plication and utilization of Botox injections: First case report from Saudi Arabia for a 19-year-old female.Clinical case reports · 2019Article
- Erratum: Addendum: Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: An Integrated Approach.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2018Article
- What Do We Know About Component Separation Techniques for Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair?Frontiers in surgery · 2018Article
- Botulinum Toxin A as an Adjunct to Abdominal Wall Reconstruction for Incisional Hernia.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2017Article
- How to perform the endoscopically assisted components separation technique (ECST) for large ventral hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2016Article
- Evolution and advances in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe component separation technique (CST) was developed to improve the integrity of abdominal wall reconstruction for large, complex hernias. Open CST necessitates large subcutaneous skin flaps and, therefore, is associated with significant ischemic wound complications. The minimally invasive or endoscopic component separation technique (MICST) has been suggested in preliminary studies to reduce wound complication rates post-operatively. In this study, we systematically reviewed the literature comparing open versus endoscopic component separation and performed a meta-analysis of controlled studies.
methodsA comprehensive search of electronic databases was completed. All English, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparison study, and case series were included. All comparison studies included in the meta-analysis were assessed independently by two reviewers for methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools.
results63 primary studies (3,055 patients) were identified; 7 controlled studies and 56 case series. The total wound complication rate was lower for MICST (20.6 %) compared to Open CST (34.6 %). MICST compared to open CST was shown to have lower rates of superficial infections (3.5 vs 8.9 %), skin dehiscence (5.3 vs 8.2 %), necrosis (2.1 vs 6.8 %), hematoma/seroma formation (4.6 vs 7.4 %), fistula tract formation (0.4 vs 1.0 %), fascial dehiscence (0.0 vs 0.4 %), and mortality (0.4 vs 0.6 %.) The open component CST did have lower rates of intra-abdominal abscess formation (3.8 vs 4.6 %) and recurrence rates (11.1 vs 15.1 %). The meta-analysis included 7 non-randomized controlled studies (387 patients). A similar suggestive overall trend was found favoring MICST, although most types of wound complications did not show to significance. MICST was associated with a significantly decreased rate of fascial dehiscence and was shown to be significantly shorter procedure.
conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MICST to open CST suggests MICST is associated with decreased overall post-operative wound complication rates. Further prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.
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.