ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2026
Incisional hernia after specimen extraction in minimally invasive gynaecologic surgery: a systematic review.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 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
Background: The location and size of abdominal incisions to enable tissue extraction might increase the risk of incisional hernia (IH). Objectives: To determine the reported incidence of IH after specimen extraction in gynaecological minimally invasive surgery. Methods: On January 9 Main Outcomes Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of IH. Secondary outcomes included incision length and location, time to diagnosis and risk factors for developing IH. Results: Thirty one studies were identified, of which three retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. The reported incidence of IH was between 0.02% and 8.3%, with a time to diagnosis spanning two days to two and a half years. Data were lacking or insufficient on the size and location of the incision and on the technique used for specimen extraction. Conclusions: There is a lack of evidence on the risk of developing IH in minimally invasive gynaecological surgery. Given the increasing use of minimally invasive surgical techniques, there is a pressing need for high-quality research on the prevalence and risk factors of IH, as well as on interventions aimed at mitigating this risk. What is New?: This review reveals a lack of high-quality evidence and consistent reporting on factors influencing IH after specimen extraction in minimally invasive gynaecological surgery.
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.