ReviewJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences2025
Open versus laparoscopic techniques for incisional hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The choice between open and laparoscopic techniques for incisional hernia repair remains debated in surgical practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes of open versus laparoscopic incisional hernia repair in adults, with a focus on postoperative complications, recurrence, recovery, and patient satisfaction. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing open and laparoscopic repair of incisional hernias were included. The main outcomes were postoperative complications (wound infection, hematoma, seroma, ileus, and sepsis), recurrence rates, time to recovery, and quality of life. A total of 726 patients from studies conducted in Europe and the United States were included: 365 in the open surgery group and 361 in the laparoscopic group. Results: The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between techniques regarding overall postoperative complications, recurrence rates, or quality-of-life scores. Although the rate of wound infection and the incidence of ileus were slightly lower in the laparoscopic group than the open surgery group, the differences were not statistically significant. Additionally, the recurrence rates were comparable between approaches (risk ratio = 1.00, 95 % CI: 0.64-1.57). However, seroma formation exhibited significant heterogeneity across studies. Laparoscopic repair was associated with faster recovery and better long-term quality of life, particularly physical and emotional well-being. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences in primary clinical outcomes between open and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair techniques. Both approaches had comparable complication and recurrence rates. However, laparoscopic repair might provide advantages of faster recovery and improved postoperative quality of life, and therefore is a viable alternative to open repair for suitable candidates. Further studies with larger sample sizes and standardized protocols are necessary to confirm these findings.
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.