SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Minimally invasive versus open abdominoperineal resection and the risk of postoperative perineal hernia: a 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. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Minimally invasive versus open abdominoperineal resection and the risk of postoperative perineal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of minimally invasive surgery on the risk of postoperative perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection (APR) or extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) remains uncertain. This study compares perineal hernia rates and perioperative outcomes between minimally invasive and open approaches.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched through June 2026. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. A Bayesian meta-analysis was additionally performed for the primary outcome.
resultsFour comparative observational studies involving 763 patients were included; 249 underwent minimally invasive APR/ELAPE, and 514 underwent open APR/ELAPE. Postoperative perineal hernia was significantly more frequent following minimally invasive surgery (OR 4.13; 95% CI 2.24-7.61; p < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group (MD - 156.5 mL; 95% CI - 298.4 to - 14.5; p = 0.03), as was operative time (MD - 41.7 min; 95% CI - 60.8 to - 22.5; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in hospital stay (MD - 2.5 days; 95% CI - 5.4 to 0.4; p = 0.09) or 30-day readmission rates (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.82-2.42; p = 0.209). Bayesian analysis yielded a posterior mean OR of 4.04 (95% CrI 1.96-8.36), corresponding to a 99.9% posterior probability that minimally invasive surgery increases the risk of postoperative perineal hernia.
conclusionMinimally invasive APR/ELAPE was associated with an increased risk of postoperative perineal hernia compared with the open approach. Strategies to reduce this complication while preserving the benefits of minimally invasive surgery warrant further investigation.
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.