SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Laparoscopic versus open repair for umbilical hernia: outcomes and complications.
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
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate which surgical approach is more beneficial for patients with umbilical hernia, and compare the clinical outcomes between the laparoscopic group and the open group. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were used to search for eligible studies from their inception to December 31, 2025. Mean difference (MD), Odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled to analyze. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) scores were used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. This study was performed with Stata (V.18.0) software.
resultsA total of thirteen studies involving 62,588 patients were included in this study. By comparing the postoperative outcomes, we found that the laparoscopic group had longer operative time (MD = 1.50, I²=97.28%, 95%CI = 0.54 to 2.47, P < 0.1), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD=-0.57, I²=96.14%, 95%CI=-1.1 to -0.01, P < 0.1), fewer overall complications (OR = 0.65, I²=0.00%, 95%CI = 0.49 to 0.85, P < 0.1), fewer wound infection (OR = 0.55, I²=13.20%, 95%CI = 0.40 to 0.76, P < 0.1), fewer wound healing disorder (OR = 0.54, I²=0.00%, 95%CI = 0.30 to 1.00, P < 0.1), more respiratory complications (OR = 3.16, I²=0.00%, 95%CI = 1.88 to 5.32, P < 0.1), more heart related complications (OR = 3.75, I²=0.00%, 95%CI = 1.84 to 7.66, P < 0.1), more ileus (OR = 8.43, I²=0.00%, 95%CI = 2.98 to 23.84, P < 0.1), less bleeding (OR = 0.36, I²=0.00%, 95%CI = 0.14 to 0.91, P < 0.1) and shorter follow-up time (MD=-0.24, I²=0.00%, 95%CI=-0.41 to -0.08 P < 0.1).
conclusionCompared with open umbilical hernia surgery, laparoscopic surgery has more advantages in reducing postoperative hospital stay, wound infection, and overall complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42484912What 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.