SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Open versus robotic transversus abdominis release for ventral hernia repair: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile robotic transversus abdominis release (rTAR) offers distinct advantages over the open technique (oTAR) for complex ventral hernia repairs (VHR), its adoption rate lags behind. Despite superior peri- and postoperative outcomes, oTAR remains more widely utilized. The aim of this study is to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing rTAR and oTAR approaches for ventral hernia repair (VHR) patients.
methodsPubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Sciences were systematically searched from inception to February 2026 to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing rTAR versus oTAR for VHR. Meta-analyses were performed using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model, and statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I² statistic. All analyses were conducted in R (version 4.4.0).
resultsA total of 1,363 references were initially yielded, of whom only 10 observational studies, comprising 1,085 patients, 461 oTAR and 624 rTAR, were included in the analysis. The mean age was 62.3 years in the robotic group and 59.7 years in the open group. The mean BMI was 31.7 kg/m² in the robotic group and 31.4 kg/m² in the open group. Females comprised approximately 56% of the robotic cohort and 57% of the open cohort. The analysis showed that rTAR was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the SSO (OR 0.48; 95%CI 0.28 to 0.80; p-value = 0.004; I² = 15.4%), SSI (OR 0.27; 95%CI 0.13 to 0.55; p-value = 0.0003 I² = 0%) and readmission (OR 0.39; 95%CI 0.20 to 0.75; p-value = 0.004; I² = 0%) rates, being also associated with a statistically significant decrease in the mean LOS time (MD -4.65 days; 95%CI -5.65 to -3.66; p-value < 0.001; I² = 64.8%). However the implementation of rTAR was associated with a significant increase in operation time (MD 42.64 min; 95%CI 9.30 to 75.98; p-value = 0.012; I²= 83.4%) and no statistically significant difference was found regarding the recurrence rates (OR 0.89; 95%CI 0.30 to 2.63; p-value = 0.829; I² = 0%).
conclusionCurrent observational data suggests that rTAR may offer a decreased odds of SSO, SSI, readmission rate and LOS when compared with oTAR. However, rTAR was associated with increased operative time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42640460What 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.