SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
Emergency parastomal hernia repair - a systematic review.
Synthesis in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Endoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair for parastomal hernia using the ePauli technique.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abcstratPURPOSE: Parastomal hernia is a common complication that may require emergency repair (ePHR). Although 20% of PHRs are performed in an emergency setting, treatment strategies and outcomes are poorly documented. This systematic review aimed to determine the optimal strategy and surgical technique for ePHR.
methodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar for original studies reporting on ePHR. Primary outcome was rate of reoperation within 90 days. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) as well as 90-day rates of surgical site infection (SSI), other complications, and mortality.
resultsThe search identified 328 studies of which 10 was included totalling 21,877 patients undergoing ePHR. Mean rates for short-term reoperation, SSI, other complications and mortality were 39% (95%-confidence interval 31-49%), 24% (15-37%), 44% (30-59%) and 12% (8-16%), respectively. Median LOS varied between 7 and 13 days. Insufficient data precluded meta-analysis for comparison of (1) open and laparoscopic repair, (2) local repair, relocation and reversal, as well as (3) mesh and suture repair.
conclusionBesides considerable LOS, ePHR was associated with high morbidity and mortality. The limited available literature and conflicting data did not entitle recommendation of a specific surgical approach for this patient group. There was no evidence that suggested mesh should be avoided in ePHR. Future studies should investigate a two-stage approach with initial damage control versus one-stage definitive repair. Moreover, studies are warranted to compare open and minimally invasive surgery for ePHR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41329221What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.