ArticleCureus2025
Incisional Hernia at Extraction Sites Following Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: A Comparative Study of Midline vs Non-midline Extraction.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionThe choice of specimen extraction site in laparoscopic colorectal surgery may influence incisional hernia risk, yet optimal site selection remains debated. This study compares hernia rates between midline and non-midline extraction sites, assessing the impact of surgical site infection (SSI), diabetes, and immunosuppression.
methodsA retrospective cohort study included 276 patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection (2019-2022) at a UK District General Hospital, with a minimum three-year follow-up. Patients were grouped by extraction site: midline (n=99) and non-midline (n=177; transverse off-midline, n=116; Pfannenstiel, n=37; stoma site, n=24). Data on age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, diabetes, immunosuppression, surgical site infection (SSI), and incisional hernia (diagnosed via CT or clinical examination) were collected. Statistical analyses included Chi-square, Fisher's exact, t-tests, and Pearson correlations.
resultsMidline extractions had a higher hernia rate (27.3%) than non-midline (11.9%; p=0.0021). Pfannenstiel incisions showed the lowest rate (2.8%; p=0.0008), followed by transverse (14.7%; p=0.0343), with stoma site rates similar to midline (12.5%; p=0.1859). SSI strongly correlated with hernia incidence (r=0.950, p=0.013), unlike diabetes (r=0.296, p=0.628) or immunosuppression (r=0.284, p=0.640). ASA grade distribution differed significantly (p=0.0324).
conclusionNon-midline extraction sites, particularly Pfannenstiel, reduce incisional hernia risk compared to midline incisions. SSI is a critical risk factor, emphasizing the importance of infection prevention. These findings support strategic site selection to optimize 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.