Evidence mapPaperPMID 40714948Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2025

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Parastomal Hernia Repair: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ahmed Abdelsamad, Mohammed Khaled Mohammed, Mohamed Badr Almoshantaf, Aya Alrawi, Ziad A Fadl, Ziad Tarek, Nada Osama Aboelmajd, Torsten Herzog, Florian Gebauer, Nada K Abdelsattar and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Emergency parastomal hernia repair - a systematic review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ahmed AbdelsamadDepartment of Surgery II, University of Witten - Herdecke, Witten, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5451-4504
Mohammed Khaled MohammedFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Al Giza, Egypt.
Mohamed Badr AlmoshantafDepartment of General Surgery, Ealing Hospital, LNWH Trust, London, UK.
Aya AlrawiFaculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.
Ziad A FadlFaculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.
Ziad TarekFaculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.
Nada Osama AboelmajdFaculty of Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt.
Torsten HerzogDepartment of Surgery, Ruhr-Bochum University, Bochum, Germany.
Florian GebauerDepartment of Surgery II, University of Witten - Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
Nada K AbdelsattarFaculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.
Taha Abd-Elsalam Ashraf TahaFaculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParastomal hernia is a frequent and complex complication following stoma creation, often requiring surgical intervention. The optimal repair technique remains a subject of debate, with open and minimally invasive approaches each presenting distinct advantages and limitations. This meta-analysis systematically compares these techniques for parastomal hernia repair, evaluating key clinical outcomes including short- and long-term results.

methodsWe performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines, searching the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases through October 2024. Studies were included if they involved adult patients undergoing parastomal hernia repair using open and minimally invasive techniques, and reported at least two relevant clinical outcomes. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4. Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated, with heterogeneity assessed through p-values. A random-effects model was applied for analyses with substantial heterogeneity.

resultsMinimally invasive approaches were associated with favorable outcomes compared to open surgery in several key parameters. Laparoscopic repair significantly reduced hospital stay by an average of 4 days compared to open techniques (p < 0.00001) and showed significantly lower complication rates, including surgical site infections (RR: 0.37- 0.63, p-values 0.02-0.03). Mortality was also significantly reduced in the laparoscopic group (RR: 0.18; p = 0.0009) while recurrence rates showed no significant difference between approaches. Robotic-assisted repair demonstrated a potential reduction in operative time (RR = 0.60, p = 0.007); however, this finding is based on a limited sample and should be interpreted with caution.

conclusionLaparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias provides significant advantages over open surgery including reduced morbidity, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications. Although limited by sample size, robotic-assisted repair seems promising in reducing operative time and may offer added value in complex or recurrent cases; however, further research is needed to validate its cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes. These findings support the preferential use of a minimally invasive approach in parastomal hernia repair whenever feasible while acknowledging that an individualized approach may still be necessary based on patient-specific factors and institutional resources.

Indexed as

Hernia, VentralHerniorrhaphyIncisional HerniaLaparoscopyMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresSurgical StomasHumansLength of StayPostoperative Complicationsmeta‐analysisminimal invasive surgeryopen surgeryparastomal herniapostoperative outcomes

Identifiers

PMID40714948
PMCPMC12435612

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.