Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36607459›Full record

SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2023

Patient-reported outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

R Dixit, O P Prajapati, A Krishna, S K Rai, M Prasad, V K Bansal

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Suture Techniques and Materials for Fascial Closure of Abdominal Wall Incisions: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

6 authors.

R DixitDepartment of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room Number 406, Surgery Block, New Delhi, India, 110049.
O P PrajapatiDepartment of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room Number 406, Surgery Block, New Delhi, India, 110049.
A KrishnaDepartment of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room Number 406, Surgery Block, New Delhi, India, 110049. dr.asurikrishna@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1214-0014
S K RaiDepartment of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room Number 406, Surgery Block, New Delhi, India, 110049.
M PrasadClinical Research and Epidemiology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India.
V K BansalDepartment of Surgical Disciplines, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room Number 406, Surgery Block, New Delhi, India, 110049.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM's) are increasingly used to assess surgical outcomes in low-risk surgeries such as minimally invasive primary ventral and incisional hernia repair. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to systematically summarize the available evidence for the effect of laparoscopic versus robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair on PROM's.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Randomised control trials, retrospective and prospective studies were included. Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL, and two trial registers were searched. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

resultsOf the 2728 titles screened, eight studies involving 41,205 participants were included. Return to activities of daily living, return to work day and recurrence rate were statistically better in the robotic group. Length of stay, readmission, postoperative pain, quality of life, body image, and patient satisfaction were similar in both groups. The GRADE rating of the quality of evidence was moderate for postoperative pain and low to very low for the quality of life, length of stay, recurrence and readmission.

conclusionThe available data of PROM's of laparoscopic and robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair is scarce and highly heterogeneous, thus making it difficult to assess the superiority of the laparoscopic technique over the robotic technique. Further studies with uniform reporting of PROM's in laparoscopic and robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair are needed.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralIncisional HerniaLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresActivities of Daily LivingHerniorrhaphyHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative PainProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshHerniaIncisionalLaparoscopicRoboticVentral

Identifiers

PMID36607459

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.