<?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>2026-08-17T00:09:43.258+00:00</pubDate>
        <ttl>60</ttl>
        <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.2026.16917</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.2026.16362</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.2026.16500</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><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16382</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16382</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Health-related quality of life outcomes of bioabsorbable Phasix Mesh versus permanent synthetic mesh following open ventral hernia repair: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-05-11T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Review</category>
        <author>Mia Weiss</author><author>Hakan Gürcan</author><author>Elise Aronitz</author><author>Haytham Gareer</author><author>John P. Fischer</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundA hernia occurs when an organ or tissue protrudes through a weak spot in the surrounding muscle or connective tissue. The presence of a hernia, its surgical management, and the associated postoperative complications can substantially influence patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Ventral hernias often require mesh repair to reduce recurrence. While permanent synthetic meshes have historically been the standard of care, they have been associated with complications such as infection and chronic pain. As a result, patients are increasingly requesting alternatives, leading to growing interest in bioabsorbable meshes such as Phasix™ Mesh. This systematic literature review uses narrative synthesis to summarize reported HRQoL outcomes following open ventral hernia repair with Phasix™ Mesh or permanent synthetic mesh.MethodsSearches were conducted across multiple databases (i.e., MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Cochrane Reviews) from 2013 to August 2024 using a peer-reviewed strategy. The primary outcome of the review was HRQoL, reported using the hernia-related quality of life survey (HerQLes).ResultsSeven records of six independent studies met the inclusion criteria; four on Phasix™ Mesh and three on permanent synthetic mesh. Most studies were retrospective, with follow-up durations ranging from 12 to 66 months. A narrative synthesis was performed to summarize study design, patient characteristics, and HerQLes outcomes. Both mesh types showed improvements in HerQLes scores postoperatively. At the longest follow-up, the mean HerQLes postoperative scores were 75.25 for Phasix™ Mesh studies and 75.56 for permanent synthetic mesh studies. Quality of studies were moderate to high based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, supporting the reliability of findings.ConclusionThis study found that postoperative HerQLes scores improved with both Phasix™ Mesh and permanent synthetic meshes following open, ventral hernia repair. Single-arm studies of Phasix™ Mesh reported improvements in HerQLes scores up to 60 months post-surgery, including complex hernia cases. Early improvements in HerQLes scores were reported in permanent synthetic mesh studies, with reduced scores observed at the longest follow-up time points. Future large-scale, rigorously designed comparative studies are needed to confirm these findings, given no direct comparative studies are available.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.15676</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.15676</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Laparoscopic extraperitoneal techniques in ventral hernia repair: a retrospective comparative study of TAPP and TEP]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-05-08T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>R. Croceri</author><author>A. Tek</author><author>L. Aragone</author><author>J. P. Medina</author><author>D. E. Pirchi</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundVentral hernia repair has traditionally been performed laparoscopically using the intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) technique, which is simple and widely available but carries the drawback of mesh–viscera contact. Extraperitoneal approaches such as transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair have emerged as alternatives that avoid this limitation, allowing the use of standard meshes without fixation. However, evidence comparing these techniques remains scarce.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective comparative analysis of a prospectively collected database at a single centre between January 2023 and December 2024. Patients undergoing laparoscopic repair of primary ventral or W1 incisional hernias smaller than 4 cm, with or without rectus diastasis, were included. Demographic data, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Complications were graded according to Clavien–Dindo. Follow-up was at least 12 (twelve) months for all patients.ResultsThirty-three patients were analysed, 18 in the TEP group and 15 in the TAPP group. Baseline demographic and comorbidity characteristics were comparable. Operative time was significantly longer for TAPP (96.1 ± 14.8 vs. 84.7 ± 13.1 min, p=0.029). Mesh area was larger in TEP (242.9 ± 110.3 vs. 166.9 ± 49.9 cm2, p=0.015). Rectus diastasis was present in a similar proportion of patients (55.6% vs. 53.3%), but correction was achieved only in TEP (11 of 18 cases, 61.1%). There was one conversion to IPOM in TAPP. Postoperative pain scores, hospital stay (18.2 vs. 15.3 h, p=0.119), and 30-day complication rates (13.3% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.665) were comparable, consisting mainly of minor seromas or haematomas. No recurrences were observed at 1 year.ConclusionBoth TAPP and TEP are safe and effective minimally invasive approaches for small ventral and W1 incisional hernia repair. TAPP is associated with longer operative times due to peritoneal flap creation, while TEP enables broader mesh placement and ergonomic correction of rectus diastasis. Despite the small sample size and retrospective design, our findings add to the growing evidence supporting extraperitoneal approaches as valuable alternatives to IPOM in abdominal wall surgery.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16508</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16508</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Robotic parastomal hernia repair with reinforced tissue matrix; lessons learned from our 74-patient cohort]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-05-08T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>J. E. Baart</author><author>T. C. van Smaalen</author><author>A. L. A. Bloemendaal</author>
        <description><![CDATA[IntroductionPatients with a stoma often develop a parastomal hernia (PSH). Treatment of PSH is challenging and results are often disappointing, with many patients developing multiple recurrences. In this study we aim to describe our experiences with the treatment of PSH using our robot assisted operative technique, by exploring patient history and PSH repair outcome and giving in-depth description of failures and successes. We try to identify and better understand predicting factors for failure, postoperative complications and recurrence in an attempt to make a small step towards a more patient-tailored approach to parastomal hernia repair.MethodsAll (robotic) PSH repairs performed in our centre from March 2022 to January 2026 were registered in a prospectively collected database.ResultsIn this period 74 patients underwent a robotic PSH repair. Almost half of these patients (46%) had undergone one or more previous attempts to PSH repair. Nine recurrences occurred (12%). Complication rate was 31% (9.5% severe complications). IPOM mesh in situ, ileostomy and amount of previous repair attempts may be related to recurrence and post-operative complications.ConclusionThis study highlights the complexity for PSH repair, becoming increasingly more complex in recurrent cases. More (comparative) research is needed to establish a more patient-tailored approach to PSH repair.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.15992</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.15992</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Lessons Learned From AI-Assisted Guideline Generation in Parastomal Hernia Repair]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-04-21T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Maciej Śmietański</author><author>Mateusz Zamkowski</author><author>Krzysztof Tyszka</author>
        <description><![CDATA[BackgroundLarge language models (LLMs) can analyse scientific literature and draft medical recommendations, but their role in formal clinical guideline development is unclear.AimTo evaluate whether a publicly available GPT-based LLM can generate coherent, GRADE-based guidelines for parastomal hernia management from a predefined evidence base, and to compare these with the 2017 European Hernia Society (EHS) guidelines. A secondary aim was to explore implications for academic publishing and scientific authorship.Materials and MethodsThe 2017 EHS parastomal hernia guidelines (Antoniou et al.) were used as the reference framework. Within a closed session, the model was instructed to apply AGREE II and GRADE principles to 52 full-text clinical papers mirroring the original EHS reference set, and to formulate recommendations for nine key clinical questions (KQs). For each KQ, the model defined PICO, summarized the evidence, rated certainty, and stated direction and strength of recommendation. AI-derived guidance was then systematically compared with EHS statements. Divergences were classified as interpretative, threshold-based (handling of low-certainty evidence), or evidence-weighting.ResultsAI-generated recommendations showed full or near-full alignment with EHS guidance in most domains, including diagnosis, prophylactic mesh for permanent end colostomy, rejection of suture-only repair, preference for non-keyhole laparoscopic repair, and favouring synthetic over biologic meshes. Differences arose primarily where evidence was very low quality: the model issued cautious, conditional recommendations (e.g., watchful waiting in asymptomatic hernias, consideration of laparoscopy in suitable patients, preference for retromuscular synthetic mesh and avoidance of cross-linked collagen onlay), whereas EHS opted for no recommendation.ConclusionWithin a closed evidence base, a GPT-based model can reproduce the logic and structure of expert guideline development with high fidelity. Discrepancies mainly reflect different thresholds for acting on low-certainty evidence, supporting a complementary role for AI as a structured methodological and drafting assistant rather than a replacement for human consensus.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16654</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16654</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Why Are We Still Implanting Permanent Synthetic Mesh for Hernia Repair Into Young Patients?]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-04-14T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Opinion</category>
        <author>Samuel G. Parker</author><author>Steve Halligan</author><author>Alastair C. J. Windsor</author><author>Sarah Zhao</author><author>Lawrence Nip</author><author>Marja A. Boermeester</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.15830</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.15830</link>
        <title><![CDATA[InguinoScrotal Hernias: Comparison of Minimally Invasive Approaches and Open Surgical Repair (The SCAR Study)]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-04-10T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Protocol</category>
        <author>Riccardo Caruso</author><author>Emilio Vicente</author><author>Yolanda Quijano</author><author>Jorge Zarate Gomez</author><author>Belen Porrero Guerrero</author><author>Álvaro Valdés de Anca</author><author>Maria Teresa Alonso Garcia</author><author>Álvaro Morales Taboada</author><author>Pablo Pastor Riquelme</author><author>Sergio Salido Fernandez</author><author>Javier Serrano Gonzalez</author><author>Ana Pilar Morante Perea</author><author>Valentina Ferri</author>
        <description><![CDATA[IntroductionInguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. Minimally invasive approaches (laparoscopic and robotic) are increasingly recommended owing to their favorable postoperative outcomes. However, their use in inguinoscrotal hernias remains limited. This study aims to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes of minimally invasive and open approaches in inguinoscrotal hernia repair.Methods and analysisThis national multicenter prospective observational cohort study will include patients undergoing elective or urgent repair of European Hernia Society-classified inguinoscrotal hernias (S1–S3) using open, laparoscopic, or robotic techniques. Adults (>18 years) from various hospitals in Madrid will be recruited. Data on patient demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative complications, postoperative pain (Visual Analog Scale score), quality of life, and hernia recurrence over a 2-year follow-up will be collected. A minimum of 100 patients (50 per group) is required for detecting statistically significant differences, assuming 5% loss to follow-up.Ethics and disseminationThe HM Hospitales Ethics Committee has approved the study protocol. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and presented at national surgical conferences.]]></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16597</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16597</link>
        <title><![CDATA[Editorial: Use of Botox in Abdominal Wall Hernia Surgery]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-04-09T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Special Issue Editorial</category>
        <author>Pilar Hernández Granados</author><author>Mette Willaume Christoffersen</author>
        <description></description>
      </item><item>
        <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16371</guid>
        <link>https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16371</link>
        <title><![CDATA[How Reproducible Are Abdominal Wall Surgical Techniques? A Methodological Assessment of Technical Reporting in the Contemporary Literature ]]></title>
        <pubdate>2026-04-02T00:00:00Z</pubdate>
        <category>Original Research</category>
        <author>Francesco Brucchi</author><author>Rita Stanco</author><author>Gianlorenzo Dionigi</author><author>Filip Muysoms</author>
        <description><![CDATA[PurposeTo evaluate the completeness and reproducibility of technical reporting in contemporary abdominal wall hernia literature, and to assess the risk of misinterpretation when surgical techniques are classified based solely on titles and abstracts.MethodsA descriptive methodological analysis was conducted on original studies published between 2000 and November 2025 reporting abdominal wall hernia repair techniques. The unit of analysis was the surgical technique (surgical arm). Each technique was assessed across five predefined technical domains essential for reproducibility: surgical approach, hernia type, mesh position, mesh type, and fixation method. Techniques were classified as fully reproducible only when all domains were explicitly reported. A secondary analysis evaluated immediate interpretability based on title and abstract information. Terminological variability was explored by identifying distinct acronyms used for identical technical configurations.ResultsTwo hundred articles comprising 290 surgical arms were analyzed. Surgical approach and hernia type were almost universally reported (≥99%). In contrast, mesh-related domains were inconsistently described, with mesh position and fixation reported in 81.4% and mesh type in 71.7% of arms. Overall, only 51.7% of techniques were fully reproducible based on full-text assessment. When limited to titles and abstracts, complete interpretability dropped to 3.4%, indicating a high risk of technical misclassification. Substantial terminological redundancy was observed, with up to 16 different acronyms used to describe identical technical configurations.ConclusionTechnical reporting in abdominal wall surgery is frequently incomplete, substantially limiting reproducibility, evidence synthesis, and reliable interpretation, particularly when relying on titles and abstracts. Excessive and inconsistent use of acronyms further amplifies ambiguity. The strict reliance on explicit reporting may overestimate non-reproducibility in real-world practice, and the study was not designed for exhaustive literature coverage. Adoption of structured, component-based reporting frameworks may represent a pragmatic pathway toward improving clarity, reproducibility, and methodological rigor in abdominal wall surgery.]]></description>
      </item>
      </channel>
    </rss>