ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Urinary implications of retropubic dissection during abdominal wall reconstruction: Early results from a clinical quality assurance initiative.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAbdominal wall reconstruction with transversus abdominus release (TAR) requires space of Retzius dissection for retropubic mesh placement. Retzius space dissection has been associated with postoperative urinary incontinence (UI) in urologic literature, but implications of retropubic dissection are unreported for patients undergoing retromuscular ventral hernia repair. This quality assurance (QA) initiative sought to characterize pre- and postoperative UI prevalence at a high-volume hernia practice to inform risk-benefit discussions and surgical decision-making.
methodsPatients offered TAR, or who had previously undergone TAR, were given a Urinary Distress Inventory Short-Form (UDI-6) survey as a part of clinical workflow. UI was defined by UDI-6 score ≥33.33, consistent with prior literature. A deidentified QA database captured responses and respondents' age and gender. UI prevalence, UDI-6 total score, and patient characteristics were compared across preoperative, early postoperative, 1-year, and ≥ 2-year cohorts. A matched analysis was conducted for preoperative surveys that could be paired with a postoperative survey from the same patient. The study is reported according to the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines.
resultsOf 304 UDI-6 surveys, 82 (26.9%) met criteria for UI. Respondents were predominantly female (61.5%, n = 187) and median age was 62 years (IQR 53-69); 137 responses were collected preoperatively and 136 were collected in the early postoperative window. UI prevalence was higher at 37% (n = 49) within the preoperative cohort vs 18% with 6 months postoperatively (P = .0007). Thirty-three preoperative surveys were patient-matched to early postoperative surveys; among these, UI prevalence was again higher preoperatively at 30.3% (n = 10) vs 18.2% (n = 6, P = .003).
conclusionEarly results from this QA initiative provide reassurance against adverse urinary outcomes following retropubic dissection during TAR. Further prospective clinical trials may help to elucidate if there is a potential benefit to UI from TAR.
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.