Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34786641›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Current practices in complex abdominal wall reconstruction in the Americas: need for national guidelines?

Dina Podolsky, Omar M Ghanem, Kelly Tunder, Emaad Iqbal, Yuri W Novitsky

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Complex abdomen: a scoping review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Article
  2. Evaluating YouTube Videos for Resident Education in Free Flap Surgery.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dina PodolskyDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, 177 Fort Washington, 6th floor, South Knuckle, New York, NY, 10032, USA. dp2957@cumc.columbia.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3695-0222
Omar M GhanemDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Kelly TunderDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, 177 Fort Washington, 6th floor, South Knuckle, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Emaad IqbalDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, 177 Fort Washington, 6th floor, South Knuckle, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Yuri W NovitskyDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, 177 Fort Washington, 6th floor, South Knuckle, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Columbia University Irving Medical Center · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComponent separation (CS) procedures have become an important part of surgeons' armamentarium. However, the exact criteria for training, procedure/mesh choice, as well as patient selection for CS remains undefined. Herein we aimed to identify trends in CS utilization between various cohorts of practicing surgeons. STUDY

designMembers of the Americas Hernia Society were queried using an online survey. Responders were stratified according to their experience, practice profile (private vs academic, general vs hernia surgery), and volume (low (< 10/year) vs high) of CS procedures. We used Chi-squared tests to evaluate significant associations between surgeon characteristics and outcomes.

results275 responses with overwhelming male preponderance (88%) were collected. The two most common self-identifiers were "general" (66%) and "hernia" (28%) surgeon. PCS was the most commonly (67%) used type of CS; endoscopic ACS was least common (3%). Low-volume surgeons were more likely to utilize the ACS (p < 0.05). Only 7% of respondents learned PCS during their residency, as compared to 36% that use ACS. 65% felt 0-10 cases was sufficient to become proficient in their preferred technique. 10 cm-wide defect was the most common indication for CS; 23% used it for 5-8 cm defects. Self-identified "hernia" and high-volume surgeons were more likely to use synthetic mesh in the setting of previous wound infections and/or contaminated field (p < 0.05). More general/low-volume surgeons use biologic mesh. Contraindications to elective CS varied widely in the cohort, and 9.5% would repair poorly optimized patients electively. Severe morbid obesity was the most feared comorbidity to preclude CS.

conclusionThe use of CS varies widely between surgeons. In this cohort, we discovered that PCS was the most commonly used technique, especially by hernia/high-volume surgeons. There are differences in mesh utilization between high-volume and low-volume surgeons, specifically in contaminated fields. Despite its prevalence, CS training, indications/contraindications, and patient selection must be better defined.

Indexed as

Abdominal WallAbdominoplastyHernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyHumansMaleRecurrenceSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeHerniaMesh utilizationPosterior component separationTrends

Identifiers

PMID34786641
OpenAlexW3213134126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.