Open Versus Laparoscopic Surgical Management of Rectus Diastasis: Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Complications and Recurrence Rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rectus diastasis (RD) is defined as widening of the linea alba and laxity of the abdominal muscles. It can be treated via a wide array of both conservative and surgical modalities. Due to the quickly evolving nature of this field coupled with the multiple novel surgical modalities described recently, there is a need for an updated review of surgical techniques and a quantitative analysis of complications and recurrence rates. METHODS: A systematic review of PUBMED and EMBASE databases was preformed to retrieve all clinical studies describing surgical management of RD. Pooled analyses were preformed to assess recurrence and complication rates after both open and laparoscopic RD repairs (after controlling for herniorrhaphy). RESULTS: A total of 56 papers were included in this review. In patients who underwent both an RD and a herniorrhaphy, there was no significant difference in recurrence rates between open (0.86%) and laparoscopic repairs (1.6%) (p > 0.05). Similarly, in patients who underwent RD repair without a herniorrhaphy, there was no significant difference in recurrence rates between open (0.89%) and laparoscopic repairs (0%) (p > 0.05). The most common complications reported were seroma, skin dehiscence, hematoma/post-operative bleeding, and infection. After controlling for a herniorrhaphy, there were no significant difference in total complication rates between open and laparoscopic RD repair. The total complication rates in patients who underwent an open RD repair with a herniorrhaphy were 13.3% compared to 14.5% in patients who underwent laparoscopic repairs (p > 0.05). Similarly, the total complication rates in patients who underwent RD repair without a herniorrhaphy were 11.8% in patients who underwent open repairs compared to 16.2% in their counterparts who underwent laparoscopic repairs (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both open and laparoscopic approaches are safe and effective in repairing RD in patients with and without concurrent herniorrhaphy. Future research should report patient reported outcomes to better differentiate between different surgical approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".