Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (954 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
The outer margins of the abdomen, extending from the osteocartilaginous thoracic cage to the pelvis. Though its major part is muscular, the abdominal wall consists of at least seven layers: the SKIN, subcutaneous fat, deep fascia; abdominal muscles, transversalis fascia, extraperitoneal fat, and the parietal peritoneum.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Wall, Abdominal.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Abdomen; Abdominal Core
- See also
- Abdominal Muscles
Related concepts
- Abdomen
- Pelvis
- Fascia
- Abdominal Muscles
- Peritoneum
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 8,423 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Abdominal Wall” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 1,972 of them (23.4%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 3,415 records.
Reviews account for 849 records (10.1%) and meta-analyses for 75. Randomized controlled trials number 165 (2.0%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 1,190 |
| 2000-2009 | 1,846 |
| 2010-2019 | 3,415 |
| 2020 onward | 1,972 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 849 | 10.1% |
| Meta-analyses | 75 | 0.9% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 165 | 2.0% |
Method: PubMed query "Abdominal Wall"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in anatomy and physiology
Anatomy describes how body structures are built and physiology describes how they normally work, so most findings here are descriptive or mechanistic rather than evidence about treatment. Much of what is known comes from dissection, imaging, tissue studies and experiments in animals, and measurements in healthy volunteers can differ from those in people with disease or at different ages. Normal ranges vary between individuals and populations. Check whether a result was measured in people or in another species, the age and health of the participants, and the method used.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Update of the international HerniaSurge guidelines for groin hernia management | 2023 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 218 | cc by PMID 37862616 · DOI · PMC10588975 |
| A systematic review and meta-analysis of technical aspects and clinical outcomes of botulinum toxin prior to abdominal wall reconstruction | 2021 | Meta-analysis Design not recorded in structured metadata | 59 | cc by PMID 34546475 · DOI · PMC8613151 |
| Management of diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscles: recommendations for swedish national guidelines | 2021 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 54 | cc by PMID 32988320 · DOI · PMC8551433 |
| Minimally invasive abdominal wall reconstruction with robotic-assisted transversus abdominis release following orthotopic liver transplant | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 0 | cc by PMID 42554865 · DOI · PMC13633358 |
Update of the international HerniaSurge guidelines for groin hernia management [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundGroin hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed globally, with more than 20 million procedures per year.
- Closing excerpt
- Future guideline development will change according to emerging guideline methodology.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (221 words)
BackgroundGroin hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed globally, with more than 20 million procedures per year. The last guidelines on groin hernia management were published in 2018 by the HerniaSurge Group. The aim of this project was to assess new evidence and update the guidelines. The guideline is intended for general and abdominal wall surgeons treating adult patients with groin hernias.MethodA working group of 30 international groin hernia experts and all involved stakeholders was formed and examined all new literature on groin hernia management, available until April 2022. Articles were screened for eligibility and assessed according to GRADE methodologies. New evidence was included, and chapters were rewritten. Statements and recommendations were updated or newly formulated as necessary.ResultsTen chapters of the original HerniaSurge inguinal hernia guidelines were updated. In total, 39 new statements and 32 recommendations were formulated (16 strong recommendations). A modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus on all statements and recommendations among the groin hernia experts and at the European Hernia Society meeting in Manchester on October 21, 2022.ConclusionThe HerniaSurge Collaboration has updated the international guidelines for groin hernia management. The updated guidelines provide an overview of the best available evidence on groin hernia management and include evidence-based statements and recommendations for daily practice. Future guideline development will change according to emerging guideline methodology.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 37862616 · DOI · PMC10588975
A systematic review and meta-analysis of technical aspects and clinical outcomes of botulinum toxin prior to abdominal wall reconstruction [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- PurposeTo systematically review technical aspects and treatment regimens of botulinum toxin A (BTA) injections in the lateral abdominal wall musculature.
- Closing excerpt
- Study registrationA review protocol for this meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020198246).
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (242 words)
PurposeTo systematically review technical aspects and treatment regimens of botulinum toxin A (BTA) injections in the lateral abdominal wall musculature. We also investigated the effect of BTA on abdominal muscle- and hernia dimensions, and clinical outcome.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched for studies that investigate the injection of BTA in the lateral abdominal wall muscles. Study characteristics, BTA treatment regimens, surgical procedures, and clinical outcomes are presented descriptively. The effect of BTA on muscle- and hernia dimensions is analyzed using random-effects meta-analyses, and exclusively for studies that investigate ventral incisional hernia patients.ResultsWe identified 23 studies, comprising 995 patients. Generally, either 500 units of Dysport® or 200-300 units of Botox® are injected at 3-5 locations bilaterally in all three muscles of the lateral abdominal wall, about 4 weeks prior to surgery. No major procedural complications are reported. Meta-analyses show that BTA provides significant elongation of the lateral abdominal wall of 3.2 cm per side (95% CI 2.0-4.3, I2 = 0%, p 2 = 94%, p = 0.04). Furthermore, meta-analysis shows that BTA pretreatment in ventral hernia patients significantly increases the fascial closure rate [RR 1.08 (95% CI 1.02-1.16, I2 = 0%, p = 0.02)].ConclusionThe injection technique and treatment regimens of botulinum toxin A as well as patient selection require standardization. Bilateral pretreatment in hernia patients significantly elongates the lateral abdominal wall muscles, making fascial closure during surgical hernia repair more likely.Study registrationA review protocol for this meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020198246).
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 34546475 · DOI · PMC8613151
Management of diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscles: recommendations for swedish national guidelines [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundDiastasis of the rectus abdominis muscle is a common condition.
- Closing excerpt
- DiscussionThe level of evidence behind these statements varies, but they are intended to lay down a standard strategy for treatment of diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscle and to enable uniformity of management.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (270 words)
BackgroundDiastasis of the rectus abdominis muscle is a common condition. There are no generally accepted criteria for diagnosis or treatment of diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscle, which causes uncertainty for the patient and healthcare providers alike.MethodsThe consensus document was created by a group of Swedish surgeons and based on a structured literature review and practical experience.ResultsThe proposed criteria for diagnosis and treatment of diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscle are as follows: (1) Diastasis diagnosed at clinical examination using a caliper or ruler for measurement. Diagnostic imaging by ultrasound or other imaging modality, should be performed when concurrent umbilical or epigastric hernia or other cause of the patient's symptoms cannot be excluded. (2) Physiotherapy is the firsthand treatment for diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscle. Surgery should only be considered in diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscle patients with functional impairment, and not until the patient has undergone a standardized 6-month abdominal core training program. (3) The largest width of the diastasis should be at least 5 cm before surgical treatment is considered. In case of pronounced abdominal bulging or concomitant ventral hernia, surgery may be considered in patients with a smaller diastasis. (4) When surgery is undertaken, at least 2 years should have elapsed since last childbirth and future pregnancy should not be planned. (5) Plication of the linea alba is the firsthand surgical technique. Other techniques may be used but have not been found superior.DiscussionThe level of evidence behind these statements varies, but they are intended to lay down a standard strategy for treatment of diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscle and to enable uniformity of management.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32988320 · DOI · PMC8551433
Minimally invasive abdominal wall reconstruction with robotic-assisted transversus abdominis release following orthotopic liver transplant [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- IntroductionIncisional hernias following liver transplantation are common, particularly with bi-subcostal (Mercedes) incisions.
- Closing excerpt
- Further long-term follow-up is ongoing.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (221 words)
IntroductionIncisional hernias following liver transplantation are common, particularly with bi-subcostal (Mercedes) incisions. Durable repair options and perioperative outcomes in this immunosuppressed population remain poorly defined. We analyzed outcomes following minimally invasive abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) utilizing robotic-assisted transversus abdominis release (rTAR).MethodsSingle-center, retrospective review of a prospectively maintained series of post-liver transplant patients referred for incisional hernia repair. Adult patients undergoing elective AWR via robotic TAR between January 2018 and July 2025 were included.Results51 patients underwent elective hernia repair. Mean age was 61, mean BMI at repair was 29.7 kg/m2, and 65% were male. Mean time from transplant to repair was 20.8 months (range 7-64.9 mo). At time of repair, 27.5% were on single-agent, 58.8% on dual-agent, and 13.7% on triple-agent immunosuppression. Median hernia defect size was 144 cm2 (24-507 cm2) and median mesh size was 832 cm2 (390-1512 cm2). Mean operative time was 363 min and average length of stay was 3.8 days (2-9 days). Surgical site occurrences occurred in 4 patients (7.8%), including 2 surgical site infections. No reoperations were required. No hernia recurrences were identified at a median follow-up of 13.4 months.ConclusionsRobotic-assisted AWR with rTAR provides a durable and safe approach for complex post-transplant incisional hernias. Minimally invasive component separation limits wound morbidity in the setting of immunosuppression while enabling broad sublay mesh coverage. Further long-term follow-up is ongoing.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42554865 · DOI · PMC13633358
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions [5]
- Research article Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of Factors Affecting Midline Incisional Hernia Rates: Analysis of 14,618 Patients [6]
- Research article Essentials of Our Current Understanding: Abdominal Wall Blocks [7]
- Research article Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall blocks [8]
- Research article Abdominal wall endometriosis: a surgeon's perspective and review of 445 cases [9]
- Research article Mechanical properties of the abdominal wall and biomaterials utilized for hernia repair [10]
References
- Stabilini C, van Veenendaal N, Aasvang E, Agresta F, Aufenacker T, Berrevoet F, et al.. Update of the international HerniaSurge guidelines for groin hernia management. . 2023. PMID 37862616 · DOI · PMC10588975
- Timmer AS, Claessen JJM, Atema JJ, Rutten MVH, Hompes R, Boermeester MA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of technical aspects and clinical outcomes of botulinum toxin prior to abdominal wall reconstruction. . 2021. PMID 34546475 · DOI · PMC8613151
- Carlstedt A, Bringman S, Egberth M, Emanuelsson P, Olsson A, Petersson U, et al.. Management of diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscles: recommendations for swedish national guidelines. . 2021. PMID 32988320 · DOI · PMC8551433
- Banton J, Blatnik JA, MacGregor R, Majumder A. Minimally invasive abdominal wall reconstruction with robotic-assisted transversus abdominis release following orthotopic liver transplant. . 2026. PMID 42554865 · DOI · PMC13633358
- Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K, Campanelli G, Conze J, Cuccurullo D, et al.. European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia. 2015. PMID 25618025 · DOI
- Bosanquet DC, Ansell J, Abdelrahman T, Cornish J, Harries R, Stimpson A, et al.. Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of Factors Affecting Midline Incisional Hernia Rates: Analysis of 14,618 Patients. PLoS One. 2015. PMID 26389785 · DOI · PMC4577082
- Chin KJ, McDonnell JG, Carvalho B, Sharkey A, Pawa A, Gadsden J. Essentials of Our Current Understanding: Abdominal Wall Blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017. PMID 28085788 · DOI
- El-Boghdadly K, Wolmarans M, Stengel AD, Albrecht E, Chin KJ, Elsharkawy H, et al.. Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall blocks. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2021. PMID 34145070 · DOI
- Horton JD, Dezee KJ, Ahnfeldt EP, Wagner M. Abdominal wall endometriosis: a surgeon's perspective and review of 445 cases. Am J Surg. 2008. PMID 18513698 · DOI
- Deeken CR, Lake SP. Mechanical properties of the abdominal wall and biomaterials utilized for hernia repair. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2017. PMID 28692907 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.