<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
    <rss version="2.0">
      <channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
        <title>Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery | New and Recent Articles</title>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/journals/journal-of-abdominal-wall-surgery</link>
        <description>RSS Feed for Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery | New and Recent Articles</description>
        <language>en-us</language>
        <generator>Frontiers Feed Generator,version:1</generator>
        <pubDate>2026-09-27T22:29:05.893+00:00</pubDate>
        <ttl>60</ttl>
        <item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17323</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17323</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Selective use of reinforced tissue matrix in complex abdominal wall reconstruction: a multicenter consensus analysis]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-09-22T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Sebastian Schaaf</author><author>Thomas Mones</author><author>Peter Mai</author><author>Niels-Torsten Hoedt</author><author>Markus Götz</author><author>Arnulf Willms</author><author>Guido Woeste</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundOptimal mesh selection in complex abdominal wall reconstruction remains controversial, particularly in contaminated fields or in patients with extensive tissue loss. Reinforced tissue matrix (RTM) meshes combine biologic material with permanent synthetic reinforcement and may represent a potential option in selected cases. This study aimed to analyze clinical use patterns of RTM meshes and identify potential indication niches through structured expert consensus.MethodsA multicenter expert panel collected cases of abdominal wall reconstruction using RTM mesh (OviTex). Patient characteristics, hernia features, operative strategies, and postoperative outcomes were recorded in a standardized database. Cases were evaluated according to established complexity criteria. Seven abdominal wall surgeons independently rated the appropriateness of RTM use. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement, and interrater reliability was assessed using Fleiss’ kappa.ResultsSeventy-four patients were included (mean age 63.9 ± 12.0 years; median BMI 30.2 kg/m2). Most patients presented with incisional hernias and large fascial defects. Contaminated or potentially contaminated operative fields were present in approximately one-third of cases. Surgical site infection occurred in 20.3%, mesh infection in 7.8%, and hernia recurrence in 12.3%. Expert consensus supporting RTM implantation was reached in 50% of cases, particularly in scenarios combining contamination with large fascial defects. Interrater agreement was fair (κ = 0.34).ConclusionRoutine use of RTM meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction is not supported. However, RTM may represent a potential option in selected high-complexity scenarios involving contamination and large fascial defects where permanent synthetic meshes may be unsuitable. These findings are exploratory and hypothesis-generating and may support future Delphi-based indication consensus development.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17526</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17526</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Large registries, rare outcomes and neutral/inconclusive machine learning results in abdominal wall surgery]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-09-21T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Opinion</category>
        <author>M. Verdaguer-Tremolosa</author><author>Sergi Mojal</author><author>V. Rodrigues-Gonçalves</author><author>M. P. Martínez-López</author><author>M. López-Cano</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17325</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17325</link>
        <title><![CDATA[The ORION study protocol: impact of prior intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh placement on subsequent minimally invasive abdominal reoperations]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-09-18T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Protocol</category>
        <author>Elisa Pelfini</author><author>Sara Lauricella</author><author>Antonella Nisi</author><author>Gianlorenzo Dionigi</author><author>Francesco Brucchi</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundVentral hernia repair is among the most common surgical operations worldwide. Mesh can be positioned in different anatomical planes; extraperitoneal placement is gaining popularity, whereas intraperitoneal placement is linked to long-term complications. Evidence comparing the long-term outcomes of intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal placement remains limited.ObjectiveThis study addresses that gap, also examining the management of recurrences and the potential neurological sequelae of surgery.MethodsThe ORION study is a prospective, multicentre, observational study involving surgical centres across Europe. The study is addressed to patients who have previously undergone minimally invasive mesh-based ventral hernia repair, with either intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal mesh placement, and who are now undergoing minimally invasive abdominal surgery—either in an elective or emergency setting—for a hernia recurrence (Cohort B) or for other indications (Cohort A). Data will be collected between 1 March 2026 and 28 February 2027. Follow-up assessments at 30 and 90 days are planned only for patients enrolled in Cohort B.DiscussionThe ORION study will provide data on the intraoperative consequences of prior intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh placement at subsequent minimally invasive abdominal surgery, and will describe recurrence patterns and management among patients reoperated for recurrent ventral/incisional hernia.Clinical Trial RegistrationIdentifier NCT07384962.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17401</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17401</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Impact of an AI workshop on knowledge and attitudes toward AI in scientific publishing among surgeons at an international abdominal wall surgery congress]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-09-14T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Mireia Verdaguer-Tremolosa</author><author>Georgia Kotoreni</author><author>Simon Hoggart</author><author>Manuel López-Cano</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used for scientific writing, literature synthesis, and peer-review, yet their responsible use requires awareness of hallucinations, fabricated references, confidentiality risks, authorship limitations, and disclosure requirements.ObjectiveTo evaluate the perceived impact of a focused educational workshop on knowledge and attitudes toward AI in scientific publishing among participants in an abdominal wall surgery workshop.MethodsAn anonymous pre-post survey study was conducted during the JAWS Workshop 2026 on Artificial Intelligence in abdominal wall surgery. Participants voluntarily completed a 10-item baseline survey before two educational presentations and a 10-item post-workshop survey immediately afterwards. Responses were analysed descriptively. Because the questionnaires were not identical, formal paired analysis was restricted to the common ordinal knowledge item using anonymous participant codes.ResultsThirty-nine participants completed the baseline survey and 41 completed the post-workshop survey; 34 anonymous codes could be matched. Before the workshop, 48.7% reported basic knowledge, 35.9% intermediate knowledge, 5.1% advanced knowledge, and 10.3% no knowledge. AI tools were used occasionally, frequently, or systematically by 89.7% of respondents. The most frequent uses were language editing (74.4%), manuscript structuring (46.2%), literature summarization (46.2%), and data analysis or interpretation (41%). After the workshop, intermediate or advanced self-reported knowledge was observed in 68.3% of respondents. In matched analysis, self-reported knowledge scores improved in 18/34 participants (52.9%; Wilcoxon signed-rank, p = 0.0005). Post-workshop, 92.7% agreed or strongly agreed that they better understood AI limitations, 97.6% would almost always or always verify AI-generated references, 85.4% supported disclosure of AI use in manuscripts, and 87.8% considered society guidelines recommended or essential.ConclusionAI use for scientific activities was common among workshop participants, and a brief targeted educational intervention was associated with improved self-reported knowledge and support for responsible AI use. Scientific societies and journals may play an important role in promoting the responsible integration of AI into scientific publishing through focused educational initiatives.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17006</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17006</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Contemporary global practice in dissection and closure techniques for lower abdominal transverse incisions: a cross-sectional survey]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-09-04T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Leo R. Brown</author><author>Hephzibah Adegoke</author><author>Ellen Gardner</author><author>Thomas M. Drake</author><author>James Lucocq</author><author>Artur Zanellato</author>
        <description><![CDATA[PurposeTo characterise international contemporary practice in dissection and closure of lower abdominal transverse incisions (LATI) across surgical specialties.MethodsAn open, cross-sectional survey of surgeons with experience of performing LATI independently was conducted using an anonymised online questionnaire disseminated via professional networks. Data were captured pertaining to respondent characteristics, operative techniques for dissection and closure of abdominal layers, and experience with incisional hernias related to these incisions.ResultsOverall, 231 respondents from 31 countries across 6 continents were included, following relevant exclusions. Respondents comprised general surgeons (68.4%), obstetricians and gynaecologists (O&G; 26.4%) and urologists (5.2%). O&G respondents performed a significantly higher annual LATI case volume, when compared to other specialists (>50 cases/year: 60.7% vs. 6.5%, p < 0.001). Peritoneal entry varied between O&G and other surgeons, with O&G more commonly using blunt peritoneal entry (62.3% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001) and a transverse, rather than longitudinal, peritoneal opening (54.1% vs. 15.9%, p < 0.001). Rates of peritoneal non-closure were higher amongst O&G compared to other subspecialties (77.0% vs. 24.1%, p < 0.001). More frequent use of a ‘small bites’ fascial closure technique was noted among general surgeons and urologists (85.3%), when compared to O&G (42.6%, p < 0.001). Most respondents considered LATI hernias to be underreported (84.0%), however more general surgeons had encountered LATI hernias (general surgery: 85.4%, urology: 41.7% and O&G: 42.6%, p < 0.001).ConclusionThere is substantial inter-specialty variation in closure techniques for LATI. Differences in practice may influence incisional hernia development and reporting, highlighting a need for further outcome-focused research and standardisation.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16438</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16438</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Use of intraperitoneal fascial traction in robotic eTEP approach for complex ventral hernias: technique and outcomes]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-08-26T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Vivek Bindal</author><author>Dhananjay Pandey</author><author>Deepak Kumar</author><author>Shahiq Ahmed</author><author>Aakash Patel</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundTension-reduced midline closure remains a key challenge in the minimally invasive repair of large and complex ventral and incisional hernias. Commonly employed adjuncts, such as botulinum toxin A (BTA), progressive pneumoperitoneum (PPP), and component separation (CS), increase treatment complexity and may be associated with additional morbidity. Intraoperative fascial traction (IFT) has been described in open surgery to facilitate fascial medialisation; however, data related to its application in minimally invasive and robotic approaches supplementing IFT are scarce.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of six patients who underwent robotic-assisted enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) ventral hernia repair with adjunctive IFT between June 2024 and March 2025. A comprehensive preoperative workup was performed, which included clinical evaluation and computed tomography (CT) imaging. The width of the fascial defect was meticulously measured intraoperatively before and after traction. For patients with transverse defects exceeding 15 cm, preoperative BTA injections were administered.ResultsThe mean pre-traction defect width was 15.8 ± 5.4 cm and reduced to 8.9 ± 3.2 cm following traction, achieving a mean medialisation of 6.9 ± 1.8 cm. Tension-reduced midline closure was achieved in all patients, without the need for CS or conversion to open surgery. Postoperative recovery was uneventful, with low pain scores, early ambulation, and no surgical site complications or 30-day readmissions.ConclusionIFT is a feasible and effective adjunct in robotic eTEP repair of large ventral hernias. When combined with robotic precision, it facilitates closure without undue fascial tension while preserving abdominal wall integrity and avoiding CS. Larger-scale studies are warranted to validate these findings.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17443</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17443</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Negative and neutral results matter in abdominal wall surgery]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-08-20T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Opinion</category>
        <author>Manuel López-Cano</author><author>Josep M. Garcia-Alamino</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16806</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16806</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Why LATI-H must enter the surgical lexicon]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-08-18T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Review</category>
        <author>Artur Zanellato</author><author>James Lucocq</author><author>Leo Brown</author><author>Thomas M. Drake</author><author>Frederik Berrevoet</author><author>Stephen J. Wigmore</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundMillions of people undergo surgery with utilises a lower abdominal transverse incision (LATI). These incisions offer straightforward surgical access to the abdomen and pelvis and are ubiquitously used worldwide including for caesarean section. The incidence of hernia following these incisions have not been comprehensively studied and there are marked differences in abdominal entry across different LATI types. To address these hernias with a pivotal role in recognition and awareness, we propose a new term for hernias arising from these incisions: Lower Abdominal Transverse Interparietal/Incisional Hernias (LATI-H).MethodsA narrative review based on relevant literature was conducted to explore how LATI-H is described and reported. We searched the literature using MEDLINE and PubMed from inception to March 2025 to identify relevant studies. We retrieved relevant articles and included articles which described lower abdominal transverse incision complications including their hernias, with no limit on indication. Non-English articles were translated by medical translator for accurate understanding of the technique and literal transcription.ResultsLower abdominal transverse incisional hernias are poorly described and defined in the literature. They are frequently incorporated to large series of incisional hernias, but they are usually a mix of a large posterior defect with small incisional defects and have different features from other types of incisional hernia. This makes lower abdominal transverse interparietal hernias (LATI-H) a concern for general surgeons due to difficult diagnosis. LATI-H can progress and risk serious complications such as bowel obstruction and bowel ischemia.ConclusionLower abdominal transverse interparietal hernias (LATI-H) are poorly defined and are often erroneously termed Pfannenstiel or C-section hernias. The authors suggest the use of LATI-H to provide clear definition and provide a framework for future research to identify how these arise and find strategies to prevent and repair these hernias effectively.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17039</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.17039</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Impact of incisional hernia on quality of life after colorectal cancer surgery – results of the Rein4CeTo1 randomized clinical trial]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-08-11T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Charlotta L. Wenzelberg</author><author>Carl-Fredrik Rönnow</author><author>Ulf Petersson</author><author>Peder Rogmark</author>
        <description><![CDATA[PurposeTo evaluate quality of life (QoL), abdominal wall pain and discomfort 1 and 3 years after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery in patients with and without incisional hernia (IH) and perform a risk factor analysis for impaired QoL.MethodsLongitudinal observational study with patients included in the randomized controlled trial, Rein4CeTo1, carried out 2017–2021. Patients underwent CT-scans 12 ± 3 and 36 ± 3 months after surgery, scrutinized for diagnosis of IH. General health was evaluated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. For QoL related to IH and overall abdominal wall symptoms a slightly modified version of the Ventral Hernia Pain Questionnaire (VHPQ) was used. Potential risk factors of impaired QoL were investigated with multivariable linear regression analysis.ResultsOf 160 randomized patients, 134 were eligible for 1-year follow-up and 119/134 (89%) answered the questionnaires. Corresponding numbers at 3 years was 81/101 (80%). The EQ-5D-5L results were similar at 1 and 3 years for patients with and without IH (p = 0.276 1 year, p = 0.404 3 years). The VHPQ concluded low frequency of pain, stiffness in the abdominal wall and other discomforting symptoms without differences between patients with and without IH. In multivariable linear regression stoma was an independent risk factor for impaired general QoL at 3 years, p < 0.005.ConclusionIn this study, comparing QoL 1 and 3 years after CRC surgery, we could not find a statistically significant difference in patients developing an IH compared to those who did not. The presence of a stoma was an independent risk factor for impaired general QoL after 3 years.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.15545</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.15545</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Deep learning in ventral hernia imaging: automated multi-structure CT segmentation for surgical planning]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-08-07T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Vinayak Rengan</author><author>Pravin Meenashi Sundaram</author><author>Eham Arora</author><author>Sabari Girieasen</author><author>Ashvind Bawa</author><author>Naveen Alexander</author><author>Rengan Ravanasamudram Sitaraman</author><author>Vimalakar Reddy</author><author>Vishakha Kalikar</author><author>Aman Arora</author><author>Lakshmi Kona</author><author>Rochita Venkataramanan</author><author>Devansh Lalwani</author><author>Dakshin Meenashi Sundaram</author><author>Rohit Kalla</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundAccurate preoperative assessment of ventral hernia defects remains time-intensive and subject to inter-observer variability. Current manual CT analysis for surgical planning is time-consuming, with inconsistent measurements affecting operative decision-making.Methods215 CT scans of adults with ventral hernias were analyzed using TransUNet-inspired deep learning models. Expert annotations of anatomical landmarks and hernia features served as ground truth. Models were trained to automate segmentation of hernia defects and other critical anatomical structures.ResultsAutomated segmentation achieved IoU values of 0.85 for hernia defects, 0.89 for rectus abdominis muscles, 0.87 for lateral abdominal wall muscles, and 0.91 for psoas muscles.ConclusionDeep learning automation provides rapid, standardized hernia assessment for surgical planning. The system delivers objective measurements with significant time savings, demonstrating technical feasibility as a proof-of-concept that warrants further prospective clinical validation before deployment in operative decision-making.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16656</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16656</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Correction: Comparison of robot-assisted enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) and transabdominal retromuscular (TARM aka TARUP) ventral hernia mesh repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-08-03T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Correction</category>
        <author>Francesco Brucchi</author><author>Annabelle De Troyer</author><author>Richard Sassun</author><author>Gianlorenzo Dionigi</author><author>Filip Muysoms</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16805</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16805</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Laparoscopic ventral TAPP versus IPOM for primary umbilical hernia repair: why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut?]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-30T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Dimitrios Prassas</author><author>Omar Kreym</author><author>Wolfram Trudo Knoefel</author><author>Sascha Vaghiri</author>
        <description><![CDATA[IntroductionIntraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair is the most commonly performed minimally invasive technique for ventral hernia repair, however, it is associated with increased postoperative discomfort and longer hospitalization. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the ventral transabdominal preperitoneal (V-TAPP) procedure and IPOM in primary umbilical hernia repair.Patients and methodsA retrospective review was conducted on 70 adult patients who underwent elective laparoscopic primary umbilical hernia repair between 2019 and 2026, using either the V-TAPP (n = 40) or IPOM (n = 30) technique. Short- and long-term comparative outcome analyses were performed.ResultsPatient demographics, comorbidities and hernia characteristics were similar between the two groups. Surgery duration was significantly shorter in the IPOM group (time in minutes V-TAPP vs. IPOM: 98.1 ± 26.3 vs. 68.4 ± 24.5; p < 0.001). The effect of IPOM with regard to postoperative pain at 24 h was also pronounced (VAS Score min:0 max:10; V-TAPP vs. IPOM: 3 ± 1.3 vs. 4.8 ± 1.4; p < 0.001) Postoperative LOS was significantly longer in the IPOM group (LOS in days V-TAPP vs. IPOM: 1.3 ± 1 vs. 4.8 ± 1.4; p < 0.001). After adjusting for baseline clinical confounders via multivariable regression, the IPOM approach remained a significant independent predictor of both longer hospital stays (B = 2.69, p < 0.05) and higher 24-h postoperative pain (B = 1.81, p < 0.05). All other intra- and perioperative outcomes of interest were similar. No differences were noted at follow-up.ConclusionWith the exception of a longer operative time, V-TAPP was associated with significant advantages over IPOM in terms of patient recovery, while maintaining comparable safety and efficiency. While these findings are promising, larger prospective studies are warranted to confirm whether V-TAPP should be considered the preferred approach for small- and medium-sized primary umbilical hernias.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16648</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16648</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Mesh reconstruction of the myopectineal region following wide local excision for inguinofemoral tumors]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-27T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Paul Yohan George</author><author>Paul Trinity Stephen</author><author>D. K. Titus</author><author>Beulah Roopavathana</author><author>Nitin Paul Ambrose</author><author>Prakash Joseph</author><author>Suchita Chase</author>
        <description><![CDATA[IntroductionAppropriate reconstruction following radical resection of sarcomas in the inguinofemoral region and the pelvis is essential to prevent the subsequent development of an incisional hernia. Simple soft-tissue coverage may not suffice, as resection often involves the removal of the flat muscles and the inguinal ligament. We propose a technique of extraperitoneal mesh placement to reconstruct the myopectineal orifice (MPO).MethodsIn this paper, we present a technique of extraperitoneal mesh reconstruction of the myopectineal region and inguinal ligament following radical resection for inguinofemoral tumours. The short-term surgical outcome, long-term oncological outcomes, and the development of an incisional hernia were also retrospectively reviewed.ResultsA total of 13 patients were included in the study from May 2017 to February 2025. In 11/13 patients, primary closure of the soft tissue defect was possible. In two patients, a local rotational flap was required for soft tissue coverage. In 11/13 patients, a polypropylene mesh was used. In two patients, a titanium-coated polypropylene mesh was used. For all patients, the mesh was placed in the extra-peritoneal plane. Regarding short-term complications, 4 patients developed a surgical site infection, and 2 developed a seroma. In terms of long term outcomes, only one patient was confirmed to have developed an incisional hernia.ConclusionThis technique offers a simple, safe, cost-effective, and reproducible method for reconstructing the myopectineal orifice in patients undergoing radical resection of soft tissue tumors involving the inguinofemoral region, with the sacrifice of the inguinal ligament.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16362</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16362</link>
        <title><![CDATA[From online collaboration to clinical insight: identifying heterotopic ossification through a global hernia surgery network]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-16T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Opinion</category>
        <author>Vanessa Buie</author><author>Brian P. Jacob</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16917</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16917</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Surgical management of large ventral hernias following damage control surgery: a retrospective comparison of laparoscopic IPOM plus and open repair techniques]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-07-16T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Marharyta Smirnova</author><author>Oleh Herasymenko</author><author>Mykhailo Koshikov</author><author>Yaroslav Haida</author><author>Alim Ulukhanov</author>
        <description><![CDATA[Damage control surgery (DCS) has become the standard of care in the management of severe abdominal trauma, particularly in military settings. Although this approach improves survival, it frequently results in significant disruption of the anterior abdominal wall and subsequent development of large ventral hernias. Reconstruction in this context is technically challenging due to adhesions, distorted anatomy, and loss of normal tissue planes. While open retromuscular repair is generally preferred, it is often not feasible following DCS. Laparoscopic intraperitoneal on-lay mesh repair with primary fascial closure (IPOM plus) may offer an alternative. However, evidence in post-traumatic populations remains limited. This study aimed to compare the feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic IPOM plus and open repair techniques in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair after DCS. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single military centre between June 2022 and December 2025. A total of 79 male patients with large ventral hernias following abdominal shrapnel injuries were included. Patients underwent either open repair (sub-lay or on-lay, n = 46) or laparoscopic IPOM plus repair (n = 33). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Early postoperative outcomes within 90 days were analysed, including operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, time to recovery of bowel function, and complication rates. Laparoscopic IPOM plus repair was feasible in all cases, with successful primary fascial closure achieved in every patient. Operative time did not differ significantly between groups. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001), lower early postoperative pain on postoperative days 1 and 2 (p < 0.05), and earlier recovery of bowel function (p < 0.01). Rates of postoperative complications, including seroma formation, were lower following laparoscopic repair but did not reach statistical significance. No surgical site infections, reoperations, or readmissions were observed in either group. In patients with large ventral hernias following DCS, laparoscopic IPOM plus repair appears to be a feasible and safe alternative to open reconstruction. It is associated with improved early postoperative recovery without an increase in short-term complications. Further prospective studies with long-term follow-up are required to confirm these findings.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16500</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16500</link>
        <title><![CDATA[The current state of hernia surgery and Brazilian hernia congress 2025]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-06-19T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Letter to the Editor</category>
        <author>P. H. F. Amaral</author><author>D. L. Lima</author><author>C. M. P. Claus</author><author>M. L. Furtado</author><author>P. H. F. Barros</author><author>L. M. Guimarães</author><author>P. Trauczinsky</author><author>S. Roll</author><author>L. T. Cavazzola</author><author>F. Malcher</author><author>H. M. G. Santos</author><author>G. Soares</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16789</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16789</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Anthropometric measurements of the abdominal wall: toward standardization and difficulty grading in rTAPP inguinal]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-06-18T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>U. A. Dietz</author><author>R. Frey</author><author>A. Lalos</author><author>U. Pfefferkorn</author><author>M. Ramser</author>
        <description><![CDATA[IntroductionRobotic-assisted procedures in hernia surgery are highly standardized, whereas the distance between the ports and the target organ is of critical importance. To date, anthropometric data regarding the distance from the umbilicus to the symphysis and the Abdominal Elevation Angle (AEA) are lacking, both of which may be relevant for preoperative estimation of procedural difficulty and for the standardization of the surgical technique. This study prospectively evaluated anthropometric abdominal wall parameters and their influence on procedural difficulty in robotic-assisted groin hernia repair.MethodsAbdominal wall elasticity was assessed by measuring xiphopubic, xiphoumbilical, umbilicopubic, and transversal distances before and after pneumoperitoneum at 12 mmHg. The abdominal elevation angle (AEA) was measured photographically and categorized as narrow (<23.8°), normal (23.9°–40.0°), or wide (>40.1°). Intraoperative anatomical features including intra-abdominal fat, peritoneal thickness, and adhesions were recorded using Likert scales.ResultsSixty-eight consecutive patients (61 male, 7 female; mean age 65 years, mean BMI 25.3 kg/m2) undergoing elective robotic-assisted groin hernia repair were included between July 2020 and April 2021. A total of 96 hernia sides were operated, including 28 bilateral and 8 recurrent cases. All distances increased significantly under pneumoperitoneum (p < 0.0001); the mean umbilicopubic distance with pneumoperitoneum was 16.35 cm. Mean longitudinal elasticity was 13.74% and transversal elasticity 11.73%, with no statistically significant difference between the two directions (p = 0.0844). Neither AEA nor BMI showed a statistically significant correlation with procedural difficulty. However, multiple linear regression analysis identified longitudinal abdominal wall elasticity as an independent predictor of procedural difficulty (p = 0.0139). Surgeon satisfaction with the procedural outcome was consistently high across all patient groups (mean score of 9.76/10), regardless of BMI or AEA.ConclusionThe mean umbilicopubic distance is less than the 20 cm proposed as distance-to-target in robot-assisted procedures; the umbilicus is not ideal for positioning of the endoscope port. Longitudinal abdominal wall elasticity appears to be a relevant factor influencing the difficulty of robot-assisted groin hernia repair, whereas BMI and AEA alone are insufficient predictors.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.15942</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.15942</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Introducing robotic surgery in a low-volume, community hospital: outcomes of the first 50 ventral hernia repairs (TARUP)]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-06-04T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Jult Anton</author><author>Maertens Vicky</author><author>Melsens Elodie</author><author>Verrelst Lynn</author><author>Van Kerschaver Olivier</author><author>Fierens Kjell</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundRobotic transabdominal retromuscular umbilical prosthetic repair (TARUP) is increasingly used for minimally invasive retromuscular ventral hernia repair, but data on implementation and learning curves in low-volume, non-tertiary community hospitals remain limited. We report early outcomes and operative efficiency during program initiation.MethodsRetrospective single-center cohort study in a non-specialist, non-tertiary community hospital. The first 50 consecutive robotic TARUP procedures (2022–2024) were screened; 43 patients were included after predefined exclusions. All hernias were primary midline ventral hernias (EHS width class W1). The primary outcome was operative time (skin-to-skin). Secondary outcomes included non-operative OR time, total OR time, mesh area, early postoperative pain (VAS at 2 h), length of stay (LOS), same-day discharge, and 30-day complications. Learning curves were assessed using chronological tertiles and CUSUM analysis.ResultsRetrospective single-center cohort study in a non-specialist, non-tertiary community hospital. The first 50 consecutive robotic TARUP procedures (2022–2024) were screened; 43 patients were included after predefined exclusions. All hernias were primary midline ventral hernias (EHS width class W1). The primary outcome was operative time (skin-to-skin). Secondary outcomes included non-operative OR time, total OR time, mesh area, early postoperative pain (VAS at 2 h), length of stay (LOS), same-day discharge, and 30-day complications (Clavien–Dindo). Learning curves were assessed using chronological tertiles and CUSUM analysis.ConclusionIn a low-volume, non-tertiary community hospital, robotic TARUP showed a clear learning curve with improved operative efficiency over chronological experience and declining minor complications, alongside favorable 30-day recovery outcomes in selected smaller, primary midline ventral hernias. Longer follow-up and broader hernia complexity are needed to assess durability and generalizability.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16301</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16301</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Opportunities and obstacles in harnessing intraoperative data]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-06-02T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Opinion</category>
        <author>Amanda Hernandez</author><author>Jayson Marwaha</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16896</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16896</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Editorial: Closure of abdominal wall - status Quo]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-05-20T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Special Issue Editorial</category>
        <author>René H. Fortelny</author><author>Nadia A. Henriksen</author>
        <description></description>
      </item>
      </channel>
    </rss>