Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39528659›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024

Open versus robotic transversus abdominis release for ventral hernia repair: an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

Diego L Lima, Carlos A Balthazar da Silveira, Camila N B de Oliveira, Ana C D Rasador, João P G Kasakewitch, Raquel L Nogueira, Lucas Beffa, Flavio Malcher

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Time distribution and intraoperative workflow in complex midline incisional hernia repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors.

Diego L LimaDepartment of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA. dilaurentino@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7383-1284
Carlos A Balthazar da SilveiraBahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, BA, Brazil.
Camila N B de OliveiraHospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Ana C D RasadorBahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, BA, Brazil.
João P G KasakewitchDepartment of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Raquel L NogueiraDepartment of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
Lucas BeffaDigestive Diseases & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Flavio MalcherDivision of General Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimPosterior component separation using transversus abdominis release (TAR) is well established as an option for repair of large hernia defects. TAR can be performed robotically (rTAR) or open (oTAR) with limited data to demonstrate benefit and guide decision making. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing rTAR and oTAR approaches for ventral hernia repair (VHR). MATERIAL AND

methodsWe searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science for studies comparing rTAR and oTAR for VHR. Hybrid rTAR was not included in our analysis. Our primary outcomes were overall postoperative and intraoperative complications, surgical site occurrences (SSO), SSO requiring surgical intervention (SSOPI), surgical site infection (SSI) superficial or deep, and fascial closure. Additional outcomes were operative time (OT), readmission, length of hospital stay (LOS). We performed sensitivity analysis to explore reasons for heterogeneity and outliers, and a proportional meta-analysis of conversion during rTAR. We performed a meta-regression exploring the relationship of BMI, hernia defect and mesh width rTAR/oTAR with the analyzed outcome within each study.

results503 studies were screened and seven studies were included in this analysis. Our sample totaled 780 patients, of which 298 (38.2%) underwent rTAR. Defect width ranged between 8.7 to 13.5 cm (cm) for rTAR and 10 to 13.5 cm for oTAR. Mean mesh area ranged from 66.9 to 980 cm

conclusionRobotic TAR may be associated with lower intraoperative and postoperative complications, lower SSI, shorter LOS, and longer operative times when compared to oTAR. Given the limitations of the included studies, randomized trials are needed to better evaluate the impact of the robotic-assisted surgery for complex abdominal wall reconstruction. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42024540991.

Indexed as

Abdominal MusclesHernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsSurgical Wound InfectionComponent separationTransversus abdominis releaseVentral hernia

Identifiers

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.