Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37978087›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024

Clinical and Radiological Evaluation of Onlay Mesh Abdominoplasty in Obese Multiparous Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rectus Diastasis.

Khalid A Moharaq, Mohammed H El Fahar, Omar O Shouman, Ahmed A Hassan, Ahmed M El-Shebly

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mesh repair versus suture plication for rectus diastasis: the results of meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Diastasis recti abdominis: A comprehensive review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    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 2 countries.

Khalid A MoharaqFaculty of Medicine, Hadramout University, Al Mukalla, Yemen.
Mohammed H El FaharPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura Univeristy, 60 El Gomhoria St, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt. drfahar@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4075-5059
Omar O ShoumanPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura Univeristy, 60 El Gomhoria St, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt.
Ahmed A HassanRadiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, 60 El Gomhoria St, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt.
Ahmed M El-SheblyPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura Univeristy, 60 El Gomhoria St, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt.
Mansoura University · EGHadhramout University · YE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen with multiple pregnancies often experience abdominal protrusion and/or a lax abdominal wall. Various open surgical techniques have been developed to address rectus diastasis in abdominoplasty, ranging from suture plication to mesh reinforcement. This study aims to compare the clinical and radiological changes between traditional abdominal plication and the addition of non-absorbable mesh for rectus muscle (RM) diastasis repair in terms of function, postoperative outcome, and recurrence. PATIENTS AND

methodThis prospective retrospective study involved 63 women who underwent cosmetic tummy tuck surgery and met certain eligibility criteria. Patients with only mild diastasis recti, midline hernia, contraindications for major surgery, recent smoking history, or refusal of mesh augmentation were excluded. Clinical examination for abdominal protrusion or bulging and CT imaging was performed to check for recurrence of diastasis recti. The study included 33 patients who underwent mesh repair and 30 who underwent traditional abdominal plication. Follow-up was conducted after 1 year using CT and a questionnaire to assess various factors compared to preoperative measurements, with overall satisfaction rated on a 10-point Likert scale.

resultsThere was no significant difference in demographic data between the two groups. Patients who underwent mesh repair had a slightly longer hospital stay and drain duration. The average waist circumference decreased in both groups without any statistically significant difference. Objective CT showed significant reductions in both groups in inter-rectus distance, RM width and circumference, and intra-abdominal circumference compared to preoperative values. All patients expressed satisfaction with scar quality and umbilicus aesthetics, and no recurrence was detected either clinically or radiologically during the follow-up period.

conclusionComprehensive preoperative assessment and imaging techniques like ultrasound and CT scans allow surgeons to detect postpartum changes in the abdominal wall. Mesh reinforcement may be indicated for diastasis above 4 cm in obese multiparous females. Thorough preoperative evaluation permits customized surgical plans to optimally restore abdominal wall anatomy and function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors at www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

AbdominoplastyDiastasis, MuscleRectus AbdominisSurgical MeshAdultCohort StudiesEstheticsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedObesityParityPatient SatisfactionPregnancyProspective StudiesAbdominoplastyHerniaMesh repairObese multiparousRectus diastasis

Identifiers

PMID37978087
OpenAlexW4388753634

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.