Efficacy and safety of mesh closure in preventing wound failure following emergency laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evaluation of Mesh Closure of Laparotomy and Extraction Incisions in Open and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Evisceration and incisional hernia (IH) represent a significant morbidity following open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery where midline laparotomy or extraction incision (EI) are performed. We executed a systematic review to evaluate primary mesh closure of laparotomy or EI in colorectal resections of benign or malignant conditions. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases for studies comparing prophylactic mesh to traditional suture techniques in closing laparotomy in open approach or EI when minimally invasive surgery was adopted in colorectal procedures, regardless of the diagnosis. Both IH and evisceration were identified as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infections (SSI), postoperative seroma, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: Six studies were included in our analysis with a total population of 1398 patients, of whom 411 patients had prophylactic mesh augmentation when closing laparotomy or EI, and 987 underwent suture closure. The mesh closure group had a significantly lower risk of developing IH compared to the conventional closure group (OR 0.23, p = 0.00001). This result was significantly consistent in subgroup analysis of open laparotomy or EI of laparoscopic surgery subgroups. There was no statistically notable difference in evisceration incidence (OR 0.51, p = 0.25). Secondary endpoints did not significantly differ between both groups in terms of SSI (OR 1.20, p = 0.54), postoperative seroma (OR 1.80, p = 0.13), and LOS (MD -0.54, p = 0.63). Conclusions: primary mesh reinforcement of laparotomy or EI closure in colorectal resections lessens IH occurrence. No safety concerns were identified; however, further high-quality research may provide more solid conclusions.

Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure is controversial. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the placement of prophylactic mesh during emergency laparotomy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of Cochrane, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify RCT comparing prophylactic mesh augmentation and no mesh augmentation in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. We excluded observational studies, conference abstracts, elective surgeries, overlapping populations, and trial protocols. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023412934).

RESULTS

We screened 1312 studies and 33 were thoroughly reviewed. Four studies comprising 464 patients were included in the analysis. Mesh reinforcement was significantly associated with a decrease in incisional hernia incidence (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.07-0.44; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and synthetic mesh placement reduced fascial dehiscence (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01-0.53; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Mesh augmentation was associated with an increase in operative time (MD 32.09 min; 95% CI 6.39-57.78; p = 0.01; I2 = 49%) and seroma (OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.54-9.84; p = 0.004; I2 = 0%), but there was no difference in surgical-site infection or surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention or reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy decreases incisional hernia and fascial dehiscence incidence. Despite the risk of seroma, prophylactic mesh augmentation appears to be safe and might be considered for emergency laparotomy closure. Further studies evaluating long-term outcomes are still needed.

Should routine surgical wound drainage after ventral hernia repair be avoided? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To evaluate outcomes of drain use vs. no-drain use during ventral hernia repair.

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Studies comparing use of drains with no-drain during ventral hernia repair (primary or incisional) were included. Wound-related complications, operative time, need for mesh removal and early recurrence were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Eight studies reporting a total number of two thousand four hundred and sixty-eight patients (drain group = 1214; no-drain group = 1254) were included. The drain group had a significantly higher rate of surgical site infections (SSI) and longer operative time compared with the no-drain group [odds ratio (OR): 1.63, P = 0.01] and [mean difference (MD): 57.30, P = 0.007], respectively. Overall wound-related complications [OR: 0.95, P = 0.88], seroma formation [OR: 0.66, P = 0.24], haematoma occurrence [OR: 0.78, P = 0.61], mesh removal [OR: 1.32, P = 0.74] and early hernia recurrence [OR: 1.10, P = 0.94] did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence does not seem to support the routine use of surgical drains during primary or incisional ventral hernia repairs. They are associated with increased rates of SSIs and longer total operative time with no significant advantage in terms of wound-related complications.

ECLAPTE: Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency-2023 World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines for the closure of laparotomy in emergency settings

Laparotomy incisions provide easy and rapid access to the peritoneal cavity in case of emergency surgery. Incisional hernia (IH) is a late manifestation of the failure of abdominal wall closure and represents frequent complication of any abdominal incision: IHs can cause pain and discomfort to the patients but also clinical serious sequelae like bowel obstruction, incarceration, strangulation, and necessity of reoperation. Previous guidelines and indications in the literature consider elective settings and evidence about laparotomy closure in emergency settings is lacking. This paper aims to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) project called ECLAPTE (Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency): the final manuscript includes guidelines on the closure of emergency laparotomy.

Prophylactic mesh placement in emergency midline laparotomy for intestinal perforation peritonitis: An appeal for caution

Prophylactic mesh placement (PMP) is increasingly being used to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia after routine and emergency midline laparotomy (EML). However, such studies are not available for EMLs done solely for intestinal perforation. Patients who underwent non-absorbable PMP during EML for intestinal perforation (Group A, 15 patients) were compared with those who had a conventional abdominal wall closure (Group B, 20 patients). The incidence of wound dehiscence was significantly higher in Group A, while surgical site infection (SSI), and incisional hernia were similar in both groups. Mesh explantation was needed in half the cases. A prophylactically placed non-absorbable mesh in patients undergoing EML for intestinal perforation is associated with significantly higher rates of wound dehiscence and of mesh explantation and therefore, routine use of such a mesh appears not to be justified.