SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Fascial closure versus non-closure of laparoscopic port sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFascial closure of laparoscopic port sites remains controversial, particularly regarding its role in preventing port-site hernia and other postoperative complications. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of fascial closure on port-site hernia, surgical site infection, bleeding, and operative time.
methodsA meta-analysis of six studies involving 1,066 patients (463 closure and 603 non-closure) was conducted. Outcomes assessed included port-site hernia, surgical site infection, bleeding, and operative time. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences (MDs). Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed according to body mass index (BMI), port size, trocar tip type, and study design. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic.
resultsSix studies comprising 1,066 patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. Fascial closure was associated with a significantly lower relative risk of port-site hernia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23–0.63; p < 0.01). However, the pooled absolute risk difference was small and not statistically significant (RD − 0.01, 95% CI − 0.03 to 0.00). No significant differences were observed between closure and non-closure groups for surgical site infection, bleeding, or operative time.
conclusionFascial closure was associated with a reduced relative risk of port-site hernia, although the absolute benefit was small. No significant differences were observed in infection, bleeding, or operative time. Fascial closure may be considered, particularly for larger ports and higher-risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41996005What 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.