Purpose: To 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.Methods: A 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.Results: Two 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.Conclusion: Technical 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.

How Reproducible Are Abdominal Wall Surgical Techniques? A Methodological Assessment of Technical Reporting in the Contemporary Literature / F. Brucchi, R. Stanco, G. Dionigi, F. Muysoms. - In: JOURNAL OF ABDOMINAL WALL SURGERY. - ISSN 2813-2092. - 5:(2026 Apr 02), pp. 16371.1-16371.12. [10.3389/jaws.2026.16371]

How Reproducible Are Abdominal Wall Surgical Techniques? A Methodological Assessment of Technical Reporting in the Contemporary Literature

F. Brucchi
Primo
;
G. Dionigi;
2026

Abstract

Purpose: To 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.Methods: A 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.Results: Two 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.Conclusion: Technical 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.
abdominal wall surgery; acronyms; hernia repair; methodological study; nomenclature
Settore MEDS-06/A - Chirurgia generale
2-apr-2026
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
jaws-5-16371.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 2.02 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.02 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1232517
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
  • OpenAlex ND
social impact