AUTHOR=Brucchi Francesco , Stanco Rita , Dionigi Gianlorenzo , Muysoms Filip 
  
TITLE=How Reproducible Are Abdominal Wall Surgical Techniques? A Methodological Assessment of Technical Reporting in the Contemporary Literature 
  
JOURNAL=Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery
  
VOLUME=Volume 5 - 2026
  
YEAR=2026
  
URL=https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/journals/journal-of-abdominal-wall-surgery/articles/10.3389/jaws.2026.16371
  
DOI=10.3389/jaws.2026.16371
  
ISSN=2813-2092
  
ABSTRACT=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.