SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2026
Comparing Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Recurrent Incisional Hernia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies on Recurrence and Complications.
Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Methodological Concern Regarding Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Recurrent Incisional Hernia.World journal of 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncisional hernia is the most common postoperative complication of abdominal wall surgery that significantly increases morbidity. We aimed to evaluate recurrence rates and perioperative outcomes associated with Laparoscopic and open repair for Incisional hernia recurrence.
methodsA comprehensive and systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Ultimate, Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Studies published between July 2013, and November 2024 were screened for inclusion. The data extracted included recurrence rates, surgical complications, bowel injury, and outcomes. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were calculated to compare the outcomes of Laparoscopic repair and Open repair. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA V17 using a random-effects model.
resultsA total of 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing 1502 patients from nine countries, met the eligibility criteria. The analysis revealed no significant difference in recurrence rates between LR and OR. However, LR was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of wound drainage (RR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04-0.15) and a reduced risk of postoperative infection (RR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.17-0.55) compared to OR. Conversely, the risk of bowel injury (RR = 2.80, 95% CI: 1.15-6.80, p = 0.02), indicating that patients undergoing LR were nearly three times more likely to experience bowel injury than those undergoing OR.
conclusionLaparoscopic repair of incisional hernias offers several advantages over open repair, including lower rates of wound infection. However, it is associated with a higher risk of bowel injury, necessitating careful patient selection and surgical expertise.
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.