SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Network meta-analysis of robotic ventral and incisional hernia repair techniques: intraperitoneal, preperitoneal, retromuscular, and sublay approaches.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of robotic ventral and incisional hernia repair techniques using network meta-analysis.
backgroundRobotic ventral hernia repair continues to evolve, but the comparative performance of individual robotic approaches remains uncertain.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 14 studies, including 2 randomized trials and 12 retrospective cohorts, involving 9,348 adults undergoing ventral or incisional hernia repair. Techniques were classified by mesh plane and operative access. Frequently reported approaches were analyzed as separate nodes, whereas less commonly described but conceptually similar techniques were grouped into pooled preperitoneal and retromuscular nodes. Treatment effects were estimated using a R (netmeta); heterogeneity, transitivity were assessed, and certainty was rated with CINeMA.
resultsrIPOM and rTAPP ranked highest for operative efficiency (SUCRA 94% and 96%, respectively), whereas rTAR ranked lowest. Compared with rIPOM, overall complications were lower with rTEP-RM (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.74) and rTAPP (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30-0.99). rTEP-RM was also associated with lower seroma rates (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10-0.80) and shorter length of stay (MD - 5.33 days, 95% CI - 9.08 to - 1.58), although postoperative pain was higher. Surgical site infection was lower with rRS (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02-0.87) and rTAPP (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.78). Pooled preperitoneal approaches were associated with lower short-term recurrence and 30-day readmission.
conclusionsPreperitoneal approaches, particularly rTEP-RM and rTAPP, were associated with more favorable early postoperative outcomes than rIPOM, although certainty of evidence was mostly low or very low.
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.