SynthesisBMC surgery2025
The feasibility and safety of ventral hernia repairs under local anaesthesia: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Is laparoscopy better? A Meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair across 4,000 patients.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Outcomes of general anesthesia vs. local anesthesia with monitored anesthesia care for elective umbilical hernia repair in adults: a propensity score- matched analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Elective Umbilical Hernia Repair in Adults in the 21st Century: Challenging the Status Quo.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVentral hernias represent a significant global healthcare burden. Repair under local anaesthesia (LA) provides benefits to patients, hospitals and economies. While inguinal hernia repair under LA has been established, this has not translated to other abdominal wall hernias. This systematic review evaluates the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of performing these repairs under LA.
methodsA systematic review was conducted using OVID
results13,491 patients underwent ventral hernia repair under LA. Complication rates for LA repairs are low, with wound infections and hematomas ranging from 0.3 to 2%. Recurrence rates were also low (0.3-2.5%). Early mobilisation and same-day discharge were notable benefits, with over 97% of patients ambulatory within hours. Postoperative pain was minimal, contributing to high patient satisfaction rates (90-97%). LA repairs proved especially beneficial for high-risk groups, including elderly and frail patients. However, these findings were only seen in hernia defects less than 5 cm. Heterogeneity among study populations, small sample sizes, and lack of standardisation in LA administration were noted.
conclusionThis review supports the broader implementation of LA for ventral hernia repairs in small defects (< 5 cm), demonstrating its safety, feasibility, and patient acceptability. Careful patient selection for standardisation of best practices for LA hernia repairs offers the potential for significant cost-savings with overall favourable outcomes.
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.