ArticleCureus2026
Lumbar Hernia: A Report of a Unique Case and Review of the Literature.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a case of a 53-year-old female with a left-sided superior lumbar hernia who underwent successful laparoscopic reduction and mesh repair. The case report is accompanied by an extensive literature review of lumbar hernias. The review's purpose is to provide details of what can be expected when treating this rare defect. Publications relevant to the reporting of lumbar hernias were found using the National Library of Medicine database. Each case report was cataloged and reviewed. Repair type (open vs. laparoscopic), patient age, gender, presenting symptoms, complications, hernia site, length of hospital stay, and trauma/surgical history were recorded in a spreadsheet. Of the 41 patients, 11 had complications following hernia repair, the most common being recurrence, which occurred in seven patients. Of the 11 patients who reported complications, four had an open procedure, and eight had a laparoscopy (one patient underwent both open and laparoscopic surgery and had complications after both procedures). In two of the seven cases of recurrence (28.5%), an open surgical approach was used for the revision surgery, where the initial repair had been attempted laparoscopically. Our review found that the most common causes of traumatic injury in patients who went on to develop a lumbar hernia were motor vehicle accidents (29.2%) or a bone graft taken from the iliac crest (14.6%). Our review also found that the patient in our case had a unique surgical history (abdominoplasty, breast implants, implant removal) amongst lumbar hernia patients. Our literature review provides a clinical picture of the presentation of a lumbar hernia patient with a unique surgical history, as well as the most statistically relevant history. It can be speculated that our patient's unique surgical history may have contributed to the development of a lumbar hernia, although it cannot be deemed causation due to it being a unique case. While lumbar hernias are an extremely rare occurrence, they should be considered in patients with a mass accompanied by flank pain, especially in patients with a history of trauma or iliac crest bone grafting. Laparoscopic repair appears to offer a shorter hospital stay, but recurrence remains a notable complication, possibly due to the unique nature of lumbar hernias and surgeons' inexperience in treating them. When deciding on treatment, the surgeon should take into account the site of the hernia and their experience in laparoscopic hernia repair, and ultimately make the decision together with the patient.
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.