Abdominal wall surgery has evolved rapidly over the last decade through changes in operative strategy, prosthetic technology, perioperative pathways and digital integration. Yet the published literature remains affected by a persistent imbalance: studies with positive findings are more likely to be submitted, accepted and cited than studies reporting neutral, negative or non-confirmatory outcomes.

This publication bias can distort the evidence base, exaggerate benefit, underestimate harm and encourage premature adoption of techniques, devices or pathways whose real-world value is uncertain. In a field where innovation is frequent and enthusiasm can outpace validation, negative and neutral findings are not failures of research they are a necessary part of it.

The Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery is well placed to host a Special Issue dedicated to negative and neutral results in abdominal wall surgery. The aim is to create a visible and methodologically rigorous venue for studies that show no significant difference between strategies, fail to reproduce previously reported benefits, identify limitations of accepted approaches or reveal the trade-offs of innovation in daily practice.

We welcome original research, systematic reviews, registry studies, replication studies, brief reports, and perspective articles that strengthen transparency, reproducibility, and balance in the abdominal wall surgery literature.

Positioning this subject as a Special Issue helps address a recognized blind spot in surgical publishing. It encourages authors to submit scientifically valuable work that may otherwise remain unpublished while also giving readers a more realistic basis for clinical interpretation and evidence synthesis.

In editorial terms the topic is highly relevant to the full abdominal wall surgery community because it intersects technique, devices, outcomes research, innovation assessment and scientific integrity.

We welcome papers on:

Surgical techniques and operative approaches
Studies showing no superiority between open, laparoscopic, robotic or hybrid repairs; analyses challenging current technical preferences based on recurrence, pain, complications, length of stay or cost.

Meshes, fixation, and biomaterials
Comparative studies with neutral or unfavorable results for new meshes, fixation devices or biomaterials; work identifying unexpected adverse events, chronic pain, infection, explantation or limited durability.

Perioperative pathways and optimization
Neutral or negative findings regarding prehabilitation, ERAS pathways, imaging strategies, drains, antibiotic regimens, postoperative restrictions or optimization programs in defined patient groups.

Innovation, technology, and implementation
Studies showing limited or absent benefit from robotic platforms, digital tools, artificial intelligence, simulation or workflow innovations, including analyses of learning curves and cost-effectiveness.

Patient-reported and long-term outcomes
Research reporting neutral findings in quality of life, function, recovery or chronic pain, as well as long-term follow-up data that temper early enthusiasm for emerging techniques.

Methods, reproducibility and research integrity
Replication studies and methodological work addressing publication bias, selective reporting, outcome heterogeneity, underpowered studies and the implications for guideline development and trial design.

Authors

Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery