ArticleUpdates in surgery2023
Parastomal hernia repair: a five-year experience from a single centre in the UK.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parastomal Hernia: direct repair versus relocation: is stoma relocation worth the risk? A comparative meta-analysis and systematic review.Updates in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Minimally Invasive Versus Open Parastomal Hernia Repair: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Validation of a rat parastomal hernia model for evaluating mesh biocompatibility and repair outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of the 3-D mesh and Sugarbaker repair for parastomal hernia: a single center experience in China.Updates in surgery · 2024Observational
- Acute Parastomal Hernia Presentations: A 10-Year Review of Management and Outcomes.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Parastomal hernias can affect significantly quality of life in patients who often had underwent major operations. The incidence and recurrence is still high although many techniques have been introduced to improve outcomes. Hence, there is still no agreement on what procedure has better results when it comes to repairing a parostomal hernia. Our aim is to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and open parastomal hernia repair in terms of recurrence, reoperations, post-operative complications and length of stay. Sixty-three parastomal hernia repairs were performed in a single Colorectal Centre over a period of 4 years. Eighteen procedures were performed laparoscopically and 45 open. All the 7 emergency procedures were approached open. Both the techniques showed to be safe with post-operative major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo III or above) of 9.52%. The laparoscopic group was found to have a shorter length of stay (p = 0.04) and earlier start of stoma function (p = 0.01), more uneventful recoveries (0.02) and less minor post-operative complications (Clavien-Dindo I or II-p = 0.01,) but similar recurrence rate (p = 0.41). In the open group, the placement of a mesh showed to reduce the rate of recurrence (p = 0.0001). However, this was not found in the laparoscopic approach. In conclusion, the laparoscopic approach showed do give less post-operative complications and a shorter length of stay, with no benefit in the recurrence rate. Considering the open technique, the use of a mesh seemed to reduce the rate of recurrence.
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.