SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2026
Fascial closure techniques at stoma reversal: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
backgroundIncisional hernia after stoma reversal is a frequent complication, yet the optimal method for fascial closure remains uncertain. This network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesized randomized evidence comparing closure techniques and prophylactic mesh reinforcement.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and CENTRAL (Cochrane) was performed through October 2025. Randomized controlled trials in adults comparing fascial closure strategies during stoma reversal reporting on the incidence of incisional hernia and/or surgical site infection were included. Random-effects frequentist and Bayesian NMAs were conducted using MetaInsight powered by R packages netmeta, gemtc, BUGSnet, and bnma. Treatment effects were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence or credible intervals.
resultsSix RCTs compared standard closure, resorbable mesh, and non-resorbable mesh. Both mesh types reduced incisional hernia compared with no mesh (non-resorbable mesh: OR 0.13 [0.03-0.49]; resorbable mesh: OR 0.54 [0.35-0.84]) without increasing surgical-site infection. Bayesian results and SUCRA rankings were consistent.
conclusionFascial reinforcement, particularly with non-resorbable mesh, significantly reduces the risk of stoma-site incisional hernia without increasing infection rates. These findings support prophylactic reinforcement in selected patients.
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.