ReviewHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
No single superior technique: A network meta-analysis of open, laparoscopic, endoscopic, robotic and hybrid techniques of incisional and ventral hernia repair.
Review 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIncisional and ventral hernia pose a complex surgical challenge with no consensus on the most appropriate repair technique. This study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes following open and minimally invasive techniques of incisional and ventral hernia repair.
methodsElectronic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, and Google Scholar, last date of search being 1
resultsOverall, 3229 articles were retrieved, of which 45 full texts were screened. Finally, 28 eligible studies, involving 3,162 patients were analysed. High risk of bias was observed in majority of studies. The primary outcomes of recurrence, and quality of life (QoL) were comparable across different techniques. Operative time was significantly longer in the robotic technique while length of hospital stay was significantly longer for the open technique. There were no significant differences in terms of intraoperative or postoperative complications. GRADE approach revealed quality of evidence to be low to moderate.
conclusionsAll open and minimally invasive techniques are essentially comparable in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. An individualized approach can thus be expected to render excellent outcomes following any repair technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41790274What 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.