Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40885839›Full record

ReviewHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025

Principles of rectus diastasis classification and treatment.

Pilar Hernández-Granados

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Pilar Hernández-GranadosGeneral and Digestive Surgery Department, Fundación Alcorcón University Hospital, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. pilar.mphernandez@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8998-5165

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and purposeIn the last 15 years, rectus diastasis has become a relevant topic for general surgeons. There have been published different classification systems and more than 45 surgical procedures, open or laparoendoscopic, even robotic, for treatment. This article pretends to summarize the different classification system and give some insight about what surgical technique could be recommended in each case.

methodsA literature search of publications on classification systems of rectus diastasis and its treatment was performed in three databases (PubMed, EMBASE and WOS) without time limits, in English or Spanish language.

resultsSeven different classifications for rectus diastasis have been found and a great variety of surgical techniques, open, laparo-endoscopic or robotic. Each classification has its own particularities and only two recommend specific surgical procedures in some types of rectus diastasis. There are two main groups of patients with rectus diastasis, with or without midline hernias and in each case, different techniques could be indicated. There are no randomized controlled trials that compare different surgical techniques and in consequence, no evidence in the literature about which treatment is better in each case.

conclusionDue to the lack of knowledge in this field, the recommendation is to use the EHS classification system, the easiest and most applicable. Shared decision-making process between patient and surgeon must be mandatory to select the right treatment for the right patient. International registries can be helpful to clarify which procedure should be use in each case.

Indexed as

Diastasis, MuscleHerniorrhaphyRectus AbdominisHumansLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresClassification of rectus diastasisRectus diastasisRectus divaricationSurgical treatment of rectus diastasis

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.