SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
Anterior component separation techniques: is it necessary to preserve the perforators? a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Incisional hernia repair using component separation with perforator preservation and onlay mesh: A pilot study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnterior component separation (ACS), or Ramirez component separation technique, is an established technique still used by surgeons to repair a ventral hernia. Compared with other ventral hernia repair techniques, recent studies about ACS show more postoperative complications like wound breakdown, wound infection, hematoma, skin necrosis, seroma, and recurrence. Our study aims to compare the ACS technique with the preservation perforator technique and verify if the perforator preservation technique can decrease postoperative complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsCochrane Central, Embase, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing the perforator-sparing ACS ventral hernia repair and the standard technique. Outcomes assessed were wound breakdown, skin necrosis, wound infection, seroma, hematoma, reoperation, and recurrence at least 3 months postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio.
results94 studies were screened, and 11 studies were selected for full-text reading. Seven studies were selected, comprising 761 patients, of which 309 (40.6%) underwent the perforator-sparing ACS technique. We found lower wound breakdown rates for the preservation technique (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.32; 0.63; p < 0.01). Also, the perforator-sparing technique presented lower reoperation rates (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35; 0.72; p < 0.01). No differences were found in skin necrosis (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.03; 1.63; p = 0.14), wound infection (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.25; 1.90; p = 0.47), seroma (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.07; 1.26; p = 0.1), hematoma (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.11; 5.06; p = 0.75), or recurrence (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.37; 1.74; p = 0.59) rates.
conclusionOur comprehensive systematic review with meta-analysis compared the perforator-sparing ACS with the standard technique and found lower wound breakdown and reoperation rates for the perforator-sparing technique. No differences were found in the other outcomes analyzed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39786452What 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.