SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Outcomes after extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair for ventral hernia with or without posterior rectus sheath closure: systematic review.
Synthesis 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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced view/extended totally extraperitoneal plasty (eTEP) Rives-Stoppa repair versus open Rives-Stoppa repair: a single-center retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The concept of Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Rectus Aponeuroplasty (LIRA) technique in complex abdominal hernias based on size and location.BMC surgery · 2026Article
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
purposeTo evaluate perioperative and long-term outcomes of extended totally extraperitoneal repair (eTEP) repair for midline ventral hernias, comparing procedures performed with versus without posterior rectus sheath (PRS) closure.
methodsA systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. After PROSPERO registration (CRD420251083420), a search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies published up to April 2025. Articles were excluded if patients underwent concomitant transversus abdominal muscle release.
resultsFive-hundred-fifty-five and 557 patients underwent eTEP without and with PRS closure, respectively. Patient and hernia characteristics were comparable between groups, with most defects appearing to fall within the W1-W2 range according to the European Hernia Society classification. The comparison between the non-closure and closure group showed statistically significant differences in the intraoperative peritoneal tears (2.2% versus 0.5% in the non-closure and closure group, respectively, p = 0.0189), impossibility to close the peritoneum (0.7% versus 0 in the non-closure and closure group, respectively, p = 0.0447), and conversion to open surgery (0.7% versus 0 in the non-closure and closure group, respectively, p = 0.0447). No differences in postoperative interparietal hernias occurred between the two groups.
conclusionEvidence comparing PRS non-closure and closure during eTEP repair remains limited and heterogeneous. Both approaches appear safe and effective, showing comparable intra- and postoperative outcomes; importantly, PRS closure is not associated with an increased risk of interparietal hernias. Current data do not justify a standardized recommendation, and the choice should be individualized based on defect characteristics and surgeon experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41915282What 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.