Safety and efficacy of prophylactic resorbable biosynthetic mesh following midline laparotomy in clean/contemned field: preliminary results of a randomized double blind prospective trial

The MESH-RTL Project for prevention of abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) in high-risk patients: noninferiority, randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To compare reinforced tension line (RTL) and mesh techniques in the onlay position for preventing abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) in a noninferiority clinical trial.

METHODS

Patients > 18 years old who underwent midline laparotomy and who were considered at high risk on the modified Rotterdam risk scale were included. The outcomes analyzed were the incidence of AWD and surgical site occurrence (SSO).

RESULTS

239 patients were included: 121 mesh group and 118 RTL group. Five (4.1%) of the 121 patients in the mesh group and 7 (5.9%) of the 118 patients in the RTL group presented with AWD (p = 0.56, RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.22-2.13) in the per-protocol analysis. The median time of presentation was 6 days. The 95% CI (-0.0567, 0.0231) for the difference in incidence between the two groups was entirely within the predefined noninferiority margin of 5%. The incidence of complications did not significantly differ between the two groups: the mesh group (27, 22.3%) and the RTL group (16, 12.8%) (p = 0.09, RR (95% CI) = 1.64 (0.93-2.89)).

CONCLUSION

The use of the RTL technique for preventing AWD was not inferior to the use of mesh in the onlay position, nor did it increase the risk of complications. This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov: Mesh-RTL Project (NCT04134455).

Surgical site occurrence after prophylactic use of mesh for prevention of incisional hernia in midline laparotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The use of mesh is the standard for the prevention of incisional hernia (IH). However, the effect of surgical site occurrence (SSO) has never been compared. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the prevalence of SSO and measure its negative effect through the calculation of the number needed to treat for net effect (NNT net).

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of SSO and IH, and the secondary objective was to determine the NNT net as a metric to measure the combined benefits and harms. Only published clinical trials were included. The risk of bias was analyzed, and the random effects model was used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies comparing 2344 patients were included. The incidence of IH was significantly lower in the mesh group than in the control group, with an OR of 0.29 (95% CI 0.16-0.49, p = 0.0001). The incidence of SSO was higher in the mesh group than in the control group, with an OR of 1.21 (95% CI 0.85-1.72, p = 0.0001) but without statistical significance. Therefore, the way to compare the benefits and risks of each of the studies was done with the calculation of the NNT net, which is the average number of patients who need to be treated to see the benefit exceeding the harm by one event, and the result was 5, which is the average number of patients who need to be treated to see the benefit exceeding the harm by one event.

CONCLUSION

The use of mesh reduces the prevalence of IH and it does not increases the prevalence of SSO, the NNT net determined that the use of mesh continues to be beneficial for the patient.

Hernia Prevention: The Role of Technique and Prophylactic Mesh to Prevent Incisional Hernias

Millions of laparotomies are performed annually, carrying up to a 41% risk of developing into a hernia. Incisional hernias are associated with morbidity, mortality, and costs; an estimated $9.6 billion is spent annually on repair of ventral hernias. Although repair is possible, surgeons must prevent incisional hernias from occurring. There is substantial evidence on surgical technique to reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation. This article aims to critically summarize the use of surgical technique and prophylactic mesh augmentation during fascial closure to inform decision-making and reduce incisional hernia formation.

Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for Prevention of Midline Incisional Hernias: A Publication Bias Adjusted Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the published literature on the use of prophylactic mesh reinforcement of midline laparotomy closures for prevention of VIH.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

VIH are common complications of abdominal surgery. Prophylactic mesh has been proposed as an adjunct to prevent their occurrence.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane were reviewed for RCTs that compared prophylactic mesh reinforcement versus conventional suture closure of midline abdominal surgery. Primary outcome was the incidence of VIH at postoperative follow-up ≥24 months. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection and surgical site occurrence (SSO). Pooled risk ratios were obtained through random effect meta-analyses and adjusted for publication bias. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare mesh types and locations.

RESULTS

Of 1969 screened articles, 12 RCTs were included. On meta-analysis there was a lower incidence of VIH with prophylactic mesh [11.1% vs 21.3%, Relative risk (RR) = 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.19-0.55, P < 0.001), however, publication bias was highly likely. When adjusted for this bias, prophylactic mesh had a more conservative effect (RR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.39-0.70). There was no difference in risk of surgical site infection (9.1% vs 8.9%, RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.82-1.43; P = 0.118), however, prophylactic mesh increased the risk of SSO (14.2% vs 8.9%, RR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.19-2.05; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Current RCTs suggest that in mid-term follow-up prophylactic mesh prevents VIH with increased risk for SSO. There is limited long-term data and substantial publication bias.

Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim of these updated guidelines was to provide recommendations to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed on 22 January 2022. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network instrument was used to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCTs, and cohort studies. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to appraise the certainty of the evidence. The guidelines group consisted of surgical specialists, a biomedical information specialist, certified guideline methodologist, and patient representative.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine papers were included covering seven key questions, and weak recommendations were made for all of these. Laparoscopic surgery and non-midline incisions are suggested to be preferred when safe and feasible. In laparoscopic surgery, suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus. For closure of an elective midline laparotomy, a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomy can be considered to reduce the risk of incisional hernia; a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position is advised.

CONCLUSION

These updated guidelines may help surgeons in selecting the optimal approach and location of abdominal wall incisions.

Is absorbable mesh useful in preventing parastomal hernia after emergency surgery? The PARTHENOPE study

PURPOSE

Colostomy is a frequent event in oncological or inflammatory bowel diseases. Its related morbidity includes retraction, infection and parastomal hernia (PH), which is a quite common late complication. Several surgical options are available for PH repair, the majority including mesh. However, results are often disappointing with relevant recurrence rates, up to 33%. The study aim was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of prophylactic biosynthetic mesh (BIO-A^®, polyglycolide-trimethylene carbonate copolymer) placed during colostomy fashioning, in reducing PH. A prospective randomized controlled double-blind trial was conducted from January 2014 to December 2019 to compare conventional end-colostomy with end-colostomy reinforced with BIO-A mesh in ante-rectus position in patients undergoing colon diversion in emergency surgery.

METHODS

Patients were clinically followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months and received a CT scan at 6 and 12 months. The postoperative morbidity and wound events were also evaluated.

RESULTS

55 patients receiving conventional colostomy considered as Control Group and 55 patients receiving BIO-A mesh supported colostomy (Mesh Group) were included in the study. At 12 months, the incidence of PH was 9 (12.7%) and 24 (43.6%) in the Mesh Group and Control Group, respectively (p < 0.05). Postoperative morbidity was similar between Mesh Group and Control Group (7 [12.7%] vs 4 [7.3%], respectively; p = 0.340). The multivariable analysis showed that not using a mesh (p = 0.042), age > 70 years (p = 0.041), diabetes (p < 0.001), colon dilation > 7 cm (p < 0.0001) and COPD (p = 0.009) were all related with postoperative PH.

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic BIO-A mesh positioning during colostomy is an effective procedure reducing PH incidence at a 1 years follow-up guaranteeing low postoperative morbidity. STUDY DATASET IS AVAILABLE ON CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV ID

NCT04436887.

Prevention of incisional hernia after single-port sleeve gastrectomy (PRISM): a prospective non-randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

SPSG carries a risk of incisional hernia, particularly in patients with high body mass index. Prophylactic mesh placement with either permanent or absorbable mesh could decrease the occurrence of incisional hernia, with uncertainty on other postoperative parietal complications.

METHODS

This is a non-randomized monocentric single-blinded prospective study. High-risk patients (body mass index ≥ 45 kg/m²) underwent either 3 strategies of parietal closure (suture with or without permanent or absorbable mesh) during SPSG. The primary outcome was the occurrence of radiologically defined incisional hernia during the first postoperative year. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection rates and postoperative pain.

RESULTS

Between November 2018 and November 2019, 255 patients were included (85 in each group). All patients reached one-year postoperative follow-up. Significantly more incisional hernias were observed in the no mesh group in comparison with permanent and absorbable mesh groups, respectively (20% vs. 7.1% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.005). No difference was observed in mesh groups. No difference was observed regarding other parietal complications. One patient in the absorbable mesh group presented a superficial surgical site infection and required surgical drainage without mesh removal and one patient in the permanent mesh group presented a parietal hematoma and required surgical drainage with mesh removal. Twenty-six (92.8%) asymptomatic patients presented incisional hernia discovered on the one-year CT-scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh placement during SPSG decreases the occurrence of postoperative incisional hernia. Routine permanent mesh placement could be proposed in high-risk patients.

Midline incisional hernia prophylaxis using synthetic mesh in an emergency or urgent gastrointestinal tract surgery: a protocol for multicentre randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Between 5% and 30% of abdominal incisions eventually result in incisional hernias (IHs) that can lead to severe complications and impaired quality of life. Unfortunately, IH repair is often unsuccessful; therefore, hernia prophylaxis is an important issue. The efficacy of mesh augmentation has been proven for hernia prophylaxis in high-risk patients, but no randomised clinical trial has evaluated prophylactic mesh placement in emergency/urgent gastrointestinal operations.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A multicentre, prospective randomised, open and patient-assessor blinded endpoint design will be conducted. A total of 470 patients will be enrolled and randomly allocated to retrorectus mesh augmentation with lightweight polypropylene mesh or primary suture closure. The primary outcome is IH occurrence within 24 months of follow-up, while other clinical outcomes are secondary endpoints. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from the societal and provider perspectives.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from Ramathibodi Hospital (MURA2020/1478) and Vajira Hospital (COA164/2563). The protocol is on the process of submission to the local ethics committee of the other study sites. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

TCTR20200924002.

Prophylactic sublay non-absorbable mesh positioning following midline laparotomy in a clean-contaminated field: randomized clinical trial (PROMETHEUS)

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent postoperative complication after midline laparotomy. Prophylactic mesh augmentation in abdominal wall closure after elective surgery is recommended, but its role in emergency surgery is less well defined.

METHODS

This prospective randomized trial evaluated the incidence of incisional hernia in patients undergoing urgent midline laparotomy for clean-contaminated surgery. Closure using a slowly absorbable running suture was compared with closure using an additional sublay mesh (Parietex ProGrip™). Patients were randomized just before abdominal wall closure using computer-generated permuted blocks. Patients, care providers, staff collecting data, and those assessing the endpoints were all blinded to the group allocation. Patients were followed up for 24 months by means of clinical and ultrasonographic evaluations.

RESULTS

From January 2015 to June 2018, 200 patients were randomized: 100 to primary closure (control group) and 100 to Parietex ProGrip™ mesh-supported closure (mesh group). Eight patients in the control group and six in the mesh group were lost to follow-up. By 24 months after surgery, 21 patients in the control group and six in the mesh group had developed incisional hernia (P = 0.002). There was no difference between groups in the incidence of haematoma (2 versus 5; P = 0.248) and superficial wound infection (4 versus 5; P = 0.733). Multivariable analysis confirmed the role of mesh in preventing incisional hernia (odds ratio 0.11, 95 per cent c.i. 0.03 to 0.37; P  < 0.001). One patient in the mesh group required mesh removal because of deep infection.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic mesh-augmented abdominal wall closure after urgent laparotomy in clean-contaminated wounds is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of incisional hernia. Registration number: NCT04436887 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

An RCT was conducted to compare the widely recommended midline laparotomy closure using a slowly absorbable running suture with closure using a sublay mesh (Parietex ProGrip™), in patients undergoing urgent midline laparotomy for clean-contaminated surgery. Patients were followed up for 24 months with clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation during outpatient visits. Prophylactic reinforcement of the midline abdominal wall, using a ProGrip™ Parietex mesh in the retromuscular position, at the time of urgent laparotomy in clean-contaminated wounds was safe and effective in reducing the incidence of incisional hernia, although larger studies with longer follow-up are required.

Prophylactic Mesh After Midline Laparotomy: Evidence is out There, but why do Surgeons Hesitate?

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernias have an impact on patients' quality of life and on health care finances. Because of high recurrence rates despite mesh repair, the prevention of incisional hernias with prophylactic mesh reinforcement is currently a topic of interest. But only 15% of surgeons are implementing it, mainly because of fear for mesh complications and disbelief in the benefits. The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mesh in adult patients after midline laparotomy.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL until 9/5/2020 for RCTs and cohort studies regarding mesh reinforcement versus primary suture closure of a midline laparotomy. The quality of the articles was analyzed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. Revman 5 was used to perform a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three articles were found with a total of 1633 patients in the mesh reinforcement group and 1533 in the primary suture group. An odds ratio for incisional hernia incidence of 0.37 (95% CI = [0.30, 0.46], p < 0.01) with RCTs and of 0.15 (95% CI = [0.09,0.25], p < 0.01) in cohort studies was calculated. Seroma rate shows a significant odds ratio of 2.18 (95% CI = [1.45, 3.29], p < 0.01) in favor of primary suture. No increase was found regarding other complications.

CONCLUSION

The evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh reinforcement is overwhelming with a significant reduction in incisional hernia rate, but implementation in daily clinical practice remains limited. Instead of putting patients at risk for incisional hernia formation and subsequent complications, surgeons should question their arguments why not to use mesh reinforcement, specifically in high-risk patients.

Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation

BACKGROUND

Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterise the stage of innovation for bioabsorbable mesh devices used during both midline closure prophylaxis and complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence.

METHODS

A systematic review of published and ongoing studies was performed until 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were studies where bioabsorbable mesh was used to support fascial closure either prophylactically after midline laparotomy or for repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. Exclusion criteria were: (1) study design was a systematic review, meta-analysis, letter, review, comment, or conference abstract; (2) included less than p patients; (3) only evaluated biological, synthetic or composite meshes. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria for study quality.

RESULTS

Twelve studies including 1287 patients were included. Three studies considered mesh prophylaxis and nine studies considered hernia repair. There were only two published studies of IDEAL 2B. The remainder was IDEAL 2A studies. The quality of the evidence was categorised as having a risk of bias of a moderate, serious or critical level in nine of the twelve included studies using the ROBINS-I tool.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for bioabsorbable mesh is limited. Better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although new trial results over the next decade will improve the evidence base, more trials in emergency and contaminated settings are required to establish the limits of indication.

Ventral hernia repair with synthetic mesh in a contaminated field: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The use of mesh in ventral hernia repair becomes especially challenging when associated with a contaminated field. Permanent synthetic mesh use in this setting is currently debated and this discussion is yet to be resolved clinically or in the literature. We aim to systematically assess postoperative outcomes of non-absorbable synthetic mesh (NASM) used in ventral hernia repair in the setting of contamination.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cinahl, and Cochrane Library identified all articles from 2000-2020 that examined the use of NASM for ventral hernia repair in a contaminated field. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by means of pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Qualitative analysis was completed for all included studies using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Of 630 distinct publications and 104 requiring full review, this study included 17 articles published between 2007 and 2020. Meta-analysis demonstrated absorbable mesh was associated with more HR (OR 1.89, 1.15-3.12, p = 0.008), SSO (OR 1.43, 0.96-2.11, p = 0.087), SSI (OR 2.84, 1.85-4.35, p < 0.001), and unplanned reoperation (OR 1.99, 1.19-3.32, p = 0.009) compared to NASM.

CONCLUSION

The use of NASM for ventral hernia repair in a contaminated field may be a safe alternative to absorbable mesh, as evidenced by lower rates of postoperative complications. This review counters the current clinical paradigm, and additional prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted.