Observational studyHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Reduced Fascial Dehiscence with Combined Small-and-Large Technique Compared to Small-Bite Technique in Emergency Midline Laparotomy: A Retrospective Study.
Observational study in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2026. 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
purposeThis study aimed to compare the rates of fascial dehiscence after fascial closure using the combined small-and-large technique versus the small-bite technique following emergency laparotomy.
methodsA retrospective, single-center, observational study was conducted. All patients who underwent emergency midline laparotomy at the University Hospital Frankfurt in from 2022 till 2024 with either small-bite technique were included or combined small-and-large technique, which involves periodic internal reinforcement sutures. Propensity score matching was performed based on preoperative predictors of fascial dehiscence. The rate of fascial dehiscence was compared between the matched groups.
resultsA total of 294 patients were included. The combined small-and-large technique was used for fascial closure in 37 cases (12.6%), while the small-bite technique was used in 257 cases (87.5%). In descriptive statistics, fascial dehiscence was observed in 31 cases (10.5%); two cases (5.4%) in the group with combined small-and-large technique and 29 cases (11.3%) in the group with small-bite technique. After perfoming propensity score matching 29 cases were matched in each group, with one case of fascial dehiscence in the combined small-and-large technique versus 5 cases the small-bite technique group. However, there was no statistically significant difference.
conclusionA lower rate of fascial dehiscence may be achieved using the combined small-and-large technique following emergency laparotomy compared to the small-bite technique.
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.