ArticleTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2023
Systematic review with meta-analysis of transverse
Article in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Paramedian Versus Midline Extraction Sites in Elective Laparoscopic Right Colectomy: A Propensity-Matched Study of Postoperative Ventral Hernia Development.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The sagitta in 3D reconstruction of linea alba on routine CT scans is predictive of postoperative burst abdomen.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- Occurrence and prevention of incisional hernia following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- Port-site hernia recurrence at previous 5-mm laparoscopic access: case report and review of literature.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this article is to explore the risk of incisional hernia (IH) occurrence at the site of specimen extraction following laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR), highlighting the comparison between transverse incision versus midline vertical abdominal incision. Methods: Analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Systematic search of medical databases, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane Library were performed to find all types of comparative studies reporting the incidence of IH at the specimen extraction site of transverse or vertical midline incision following LCR. The analysis of the pooled data was done using the RevMan statistical software. Results: Twenty-five comparative studies (including 2 randomised controlled trials) on 10,362 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There were 4,944 patients in the transverse incision group and 5,418 patients in the vertical midline incision group. In the random effects model analysis, the use of transverse incision for specimen extraction following LCR reduced the risk of IH development (odds ratio =0.30, 95% CI: 0.19-0.49, Z=4.88, P=0.00001). However, there was significant heterogeneity (Tau Conclusions: Transverse incision used for specimen extraction following LCR seems to reduce the risk of postoperative IH incidence compared to vertical midline abdominal incisions.
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.