ArticleJournal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS2025
Introduction of Robotic Abdominal Wall Reconstruction Into a UK-Abdominal Wall Reconstruction Practice: Early Outcomes and Economic Analysis.
Article in Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally invasive, robotic-assisted resection of abdominal wall tumors: a case series.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Outcomes During the Learning Curve and Feasibility of Implementing the European Hernia Society Recommendation Guidelines for Robotic Abdominal Wall Surgery Within a UK Centre.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There is strong evidence that robotic abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) reduces length of stay and postoperative complications. Despite this, it remains significantly limited in publicly funded healthcare systems due to reported costs and limited access to robotic surgical platforms. Methods: Cases were reviewed from a prospectively maintained database of AWR patients in a single unit undergoing Robotic Rives-Stoppa repair or open Rives-Stoppa repair. A prospectively maintained database was accessed and analysed. Data analysed included demographics, comorbidities, hernia characteristics, operative times and surgical outcomes. Cost analysis was performed based on length of stay, critical care bed days, and cost of consumables. Results: Data were collected from 28 robotic Rives-Stoppa repairs and 18 open Rives-Stoppa repairs. There was no difference in operative time between the two groups (199 min vs. 186 min, Conclusion: Our series demonstrates that robotic Rives-Stoppa AWR can be delivered in a safe manner with financial savings and equivalent operative time compared with open surgery.
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.