ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Incidence of parastomal hernia after open versus minimally invasive surgery: a comparative systematic review.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeristomal bulging and external stoma prolapse are the most common long-term complications following stoma formation. This systematic review aims to describe available evidence on the incidence of parastomal hernia, subcutaneous prolapse and external stomal prolapse following open versus minimally invasive intestinal resections with definitive stoma formation.
methodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, a literature search was performed to include studies published in the last 15 years on intestinal resections with a definitive ileostomy or colostomy formation and a follow-up of more than 12 months, reporting on PSH and/or subcutaneous prolapse and/or external stoma prolapse after laparoscopic or robotic, and open surgery. The incidence of PSH after open versus minimally invasive surgery was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included other stoma-related complications such as subcutaneous stoma prolapse and external stoma prolapse, and outcomes.
resultsIn total six studies (one randomised controlled trial and five observational studies) on 1480 patients with a definitive stoma were included (731 open, 749 laparoscopic). All studies reported PSH as an outcome, no study reported the incidence of subcutaneous prolapse and one study reported on external stoma prolapse. There was consistent trend toward higher PSH rates following laparoscopic resections, both in clinically (RR 1.89 (95% CI 1.39-2.58)) and radiologically (RR 1.70 (95% CI 0.89-3.28)) assessed hernias.
conclusionsMinimally invasive intestinal resection may be associated with a higher incidence of PSH than open surgery, but the certainty of the evidence is very low. Subcutaneous prolapse is seldom recognised as a distinct form of stoma herniation. Clear differentiation is essential, as these conditions differ in their underlying mechanisms and management. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251026395.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42881314What 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.