ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Laparoscopy-assisted versus open surgery for reconstruction of abdominal wall defects following endometriosis resection: a retrospective cohort study.
Article 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
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal surgical approach for reconstructing abdominal wall defects after radical resection of abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) remains debated. This study aimed to compare the perioperative safety, recovery outcomes, and short-term efficacy of laparoscopy-assisted versus open repair for AWE surgery.
methodsIn this single-center retrospective cohort study, 32 patients who underwent radical AWE resection and abdominal wall reconstruction between July 2023 and June 2025 were included. Patients were divided into two groups: open surgery (n = 18) and laparoscopy-assisted surgery (n = 14). Operative parameters, postoperative recovery, inflammatory markers, pain scores, and complications were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe two groups were well balanced in baseline characteristics. The laparoscopy-assisted group had a significantly shorter incision length (6.46 ± 0.89 vs. 10.17 ± 1.60 cm, P < 0.001), fewer drainage tubes (0.79 ± 0.43 vs. 2.56 ± 0.51, P < 0.001), shorter drainage duration (2.79 ± 1.85 vs. 4.78 ± 2.60 days, P = 0.017), and shorter hospital stay (5.86 ± 1.83 vs. 7.61 ± 2.40 days, P = 0.026). Consistently, pain scores on postoperative days 3 and 5 were significantly lower in the laparoscopy-assisted group (P < 0.001). Notably, there was no significant differences in total operative time (P = 0.411), intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.453), postoperative specimen diameter (P = 0.876), time to first flatus (P = 0.320), time to first diet (P = 0.533), time to first ambulation (P = 0.443), and total complications (P = 1.000) between the two groups. No significant intergroup differences were found in incisional numbness or chronic pain at 6 months. Additionally, neither group exhibited abdominal hernia or recurrence of AWE.
conclusionIn conclusion, the laparoscopy-assisted approach offers a minimally invasive alternative that enhances early postoperative recovery—evidenced by shorter incisions, fewer drains, and less pain—while maintaining comparable operative times, safety profiles, and AWE radical treatment to the conventional 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.