ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Safety and efficacy of retromuscular-onlay dual-mesh reconstruction for massive abdominal wall defects secondary to abdominal wall endometriosis resection.
Article in Updates in 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Massive abdominal wall defects resulting from radical abdominal wall endometriosis (AWE) resection present a major reconstructive challenge. This study aims to assess feasibility and short-term safety of a standardized retromuscular-onlay dual-mesh repair technique in this setting. In this single-center retrospective study, 9 patients with massive abdominal wall endometriosis underwent radical excision and standardized retromuscular-onlay dual-mesh reconstruction between January 2024 and June 2025. A series of postoperative complications was analyzed, including surgical site infection, symptomatic seroma, hematoma, wound pain and numbness, mesh infection, incisional hernia, and recurrence of abdominal wall endometriosis. All nine patients, with a history of cesarean delivery, were diagnosed with type III AWE. Clinical presentation uniformly featured a palpable abdominal wall mass and pain accompanying the menstrual cycle. Previous surgical intervention for AWE had been undertaken in 22.2% (2/9) of patients. All reconstructive procedures were successfully performed. We recorded a mean specimen diameter of 9.61 ± 2.56 cm, an operative time of 114.00 ± 41.81 min, and an estimated blood loss of 15.70 ± 11.61 mL. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 8.50 ± 2.72 days, and drains were maintained for a mean of 5.00 ± 1.05 days. In this small cohort study, no surgical site infections, mesh infections, hematomas, or symptomatic seromas requiring intervention occurred. At a mean follow-up of 6 months, no clinical recurrence of AWE or incisional hernia was observed. Only one patient (11.1%) reported a slight numbness in the skin of the surgical area. This standardized dual-mesh reconstruction technique appears feasibility and short-term safety for massive AWE-related abdominal wall defects, with encouraging short-term outcomes and low early complication rates in this initial experience. Longer-term follow-up and prospective multi-center studies are needed to confirm durability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42126784What 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.