ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2022
A simplified method to evaluate the loss of domain.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prediction models in hernia repair: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- Review
- [Loss of domain and reduction in median suture tension].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- The influence of a multidisciplinary team meeting and prehabilitation on complex abdominal wall hernia repair outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
- Impact of a multidisciplinary team discussion on planned ICU admissions after complex abdominal wall reconstruction.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of two-dimensional measurement with three-dimensional volume rendering for the assessment of loss of domain in incisional hernia patients.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe treatment of giant incisional hernia (IH) with loss of domain (LOD, IHLD) is considerably challenging due to technical difficulties and subsequent post-operative complications. These post-operative risks may be anticipated by calculating the abdominal cavity (AC) volume (ACV) and the IH volume (IHV) on the preoperative CT-scans, using the AC and IH dimensions (Tanaka's method) or using tridimensional volumetry (Sabbagh's method). These techniques are often time-consuming and require specific softwares. The aim of the present study was to develop a simple method to rapidly obtain the LOD-ratio on the preoperative CT-Scan.
methodsThe CT-scans (n = 89) of patients with IHLD were retrospectively studied. Several ratios were calculated using different parameters of the AC and the IH, including width, height and depth, the areas (axial and sagittal ellipse, as well as freehand sagittal surface areas) and these were compared with the reference methods of Sabbagh et al. and Tanaka et al.
resultsThe LOD ratios calculated from the two reference methods gave similar results (ICC = 0.82, p < 0.0001). The new "R-ratios" (Reims-ratios) obtained from the IH and AC surface areas measured using the "freehand ROI" tool on sagittal view or roughly evaluated by an ellipse on axial view showed excellent correlation with both reference ratios (all ICC ≥ 0.71, p < 0.0001).
conclusionThe LOD ratio may be quickly obtained by drawing two circles on the pre-operative CT scan ("R ratios") and available on the webpage https://romeo.univ-reims.fr/Rratio/ . This will certainly help surgeons to routinely anticipate the post-operative complications before IHLD repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34341871What 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.