ReviewHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
The prehabilitation paradox in ventral hernia: from universal to personalized care.
Review 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this narrative review is to critically examine the paradox in ventral hernia repair (VHR): the widespread clinical adoption of prehabilitation despite limited high-level evidence supporting its universal benefit. We aim to deconstruct this evidence-practice gap and propose a risk-stratified framework to guide future practice and research.
methodsA comprehensive analysis of contemporary literature on prehabilitation for VHR was conducted, focusing on interventions for obesity, nutrition, physical training and psychological preparation. The drivers of clinical practice beyond evidence were explored.
resultsCurrent evidence is contradictory. Observational studies suggest potential benefits from risk factor modification, yet randomized controlled trials have not consistently demonstrated improved long-term surgical outcomes. This discrepancy may arise from non-individualized interventions, inappropriate outcome measures, and the powerful influence of pathophysiological rationale and publication bias on clinical decision-making.
conclusionA paradigm shifts from universal to precision prehabilitation is needed. We propose a risk-stratified clinical decision framework to direct multimodal prehabilitation toward high-risk patients. Future research must prioritize RCTs in this cohort, employing personalized protocols and patient-centered outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.