A prospective, randomized, multicenter trial of Surgisis Gold, a biologic prosthetic, as a sublay reinforcement of the fascial closure after open bariatric surgery

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.

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.

What is the ideal mesh location for incisional hernia prevention during elective laparotomy? A network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia (IH) represents an important complication after surgery. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) with different mesh locations [onlay (OL), retromuscular (RM), preperitoneal (PP), and intraperitoneal (IP)] has been described to possibly reduce the risk of postoperative IH. However, data reporting the 'ideal' mesh location are sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal mesh location for IH prevention during elective laparotomy.

METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OL, RM, PP, IP, and no mesh (NM) were compared. The primary aim was postoperative IH. Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to assess relative inference.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (2332 patients) were included. Overall, 1052 (45.1%) had no mesh (NM) while 1280 (54.9%) underwent PMR stratified in IP ( n =344 pts), PP ( n =52 pts), RM ( n =463 pts), and OL ( n =421 pts) placement. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 67 months. RM (RR=0.34; 95% CrI: 0.10-0.81) and OL (RR=0.15; 95% CrI: 0.044-0.35) were associated with significantly reduced IH RR compared to NM. A tendency toward reduced IH RR was noticed for PP versus NM (RR=0.16; 95% CrI: 0.018-1.01), while no differences were found for IP versus NM (RR=0.59; 95% CrI: 0.19-1.81). Seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection, 90-day mortality, operative time and hospital length of stay were comparable among treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

RM or OL mesh placement seems associated with reduced IH RR compared to NM. PP location appears promising; however, future studies are warranted to corroborate this preliminary indication.

The effect of prophylactic mesh implantation on the development of incisional hernias in patients with elevated BMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a common complication after midline laparotomy. In certain risk profiles incidences can reach up to 70%. Large RCTs showed a positive effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) in high-risk populations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement on incisional hernia reduction in obese patients after midline laparotomies.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search in Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL was conducted. RCTs investigating PMR in patients with a BMI ≥ 27 reporting incisional hernia as primary outcome were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence was rated according to the GRADE Working Group grading of evidence. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Out of 2298 articles found by a systematic literature search, five RCTs with 1136 patients were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia when comparing PMR with primary suture (odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.34-1.01, p = 0.06, GRADE: low). Meta-analyses of seroma formation (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.72-3.65; p = 0.24, GRADE: low) and surgical site infections (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.72-3.22, p = 0.28, GRADE: moderate) showed no significant differences as well as subgroup analyses for BMI ≥ 40 and length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe a significant reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement used in patients with elevated BMI. These results stand in contrast to the current recommendation for hernia prevention in obese patients.

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.

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement for midline incisional hernia prevention: systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication after abdominal surgery. Prevention of IH is matter of intense research. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) has been shown to be promising in the minimization of IH risk after elective midline laparotomy.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PMR vs. primary suture closure (PSC). Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (MD) were used as pooled effect size measures whereas 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were used to assess relative inference.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (2332 patients) were included. Overall, 1280 (54.9%) underwent PMR while 1052 (45.1%) PSC. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 12 to 67 months. The incidence of IH was reduced for PMR vs. PSC (13.4% vs. 27.5%). The estimated pooled IH RR for PMR vs. PSC is 0.38 (95% CI 0.24-0.58; p < 0.001). Stratified subgroup analysis according to mesh location shows a risk reduction for intraperitoneal (RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.48-0.89), preperitoneal (RR = 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.81), retromuscular (RR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.24-0.92) and onlay (RR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.51) compared to PSC. The seroma RR was higher for PMR (RR = 2.05; p = 0.0008). No differences were found for hematoma (RR = 1.49; p = 0.34), surgical site infection (SSI) (RR = 1.17; p = 0.38), operative time (OT) (MD = 0.27; p = 0.413), and hospital length of stay (HLOS) (MD = -0.03; p = 0.237).

CONCLUSIONS

PMR seems effective in reducing the risk of IH after elective midline laparotomy compared to PSC in the medium-term follow-up. While the risk of postoperative seroma appears higher for PMR, hematoma, SSI, HLOS and OT seems comparable.

Decellularization of Small Intestinal Submucosa

Small intestinal submucosa (SIS) is the most studied extracellular matrix (ECM) for repair and regeneration of different organs and tissues. Promising results of SIS-ECM as a vascular graft, led scientists to examine its applicability for repairing other tissues. Overall results indicated that SIS grafts induce tissue regeneration and remodeling to almost native condition. Investigating immunomodulatory effects of SIS is another interesting field of research. SIS can be utilized in different forms for multiple clinical and experimental studies. The aim of this chapter is to investigate the decellularization process of SIS and its common clinical application.

Failure of Abdominal Wall Closure: Prevention and Management

This article reviews evidence-based techniques for abdominal closure and management strategies when abdominal wall closures fail. In particular, optimal primary fascial closure techniques, the role of prophylactic mesh, considerations for combined hernia repair, closure techniques when the fascia cannot be closed primarily, and management approaches for fascial dehiscence are reviewed.

Decellularized xenografts in regenerative medicine: From processing to clinical application

Decellularized xenografts are an inherent component of regenerative medicine. Their preserved structure, mechanical integrity and biofunctional composition have well established them in reparative medicine for a diverse range of clinical indications. Nonetheless, their performance is highly influenced by their source (ie species, age, tissue) and processing (ie decellularization, crosslinking, sterilization and preservation), which govern their final characteristics and determine their success or failure for a specific clinical target. In this review, we provide an overview of the different sources and processing methods used in decellularized xenografts fabrication and discuss their effect on the clinical performance of commercially available decellularized xenografts.

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.

Biomechanical Parameters of Mesh Reinforcement and Analysis of a Novel Device for Incisional Hernia Prevention

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA) is an effective technique utilized to reduce the risk of incisional hernia. This study analyzes the biomechanical characteristics of a mesh-reinforced closure and evaluates a novel prophylactic mesh implantation device (SafeClose Roller System; SRS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of eight senior-level general surgery trainees (≥4 years of training) from the University of Pennsylvania Health System participated in the study. Biomechanical strength, mesh stiffness, mesh uniformity, and time efficiency for fixation were compared among hand-sewn mesh fixation, SRS mesh fixation and a no-mesh fixation control. Porcine abdominal wall specimens served as simulated laparotomy models.

RESULTS

Biomechanical load strength was significantly higher for mesh reinforced repairs (P = 0.009). The SRS resulted in a stronger biomechanical force than hand-sewn mesh (21.2 N stronger, P = 0.317), with more uniform mesh placement (P < 0.01), faster time of fixation (P < 0.001) and with less discrete hand-movements (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh reinforcement for incisional reinforcement has a significant impact on the strength of the closure. The utilization of a mesh-application system has the potential to amplify the advantages of mesh reinforcement by providing efficiency and consistency to fixation methods, with similar biomechanical strength to hand-sewn mesh. Additional in vivo analysis and randomized controlled trials are needed to further assess clinical efficacy.

Prophylactic Mesh Placement for the Prevention of Incisional Hernia in High-Risk Patients After Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and objectives

In high-risk populations, the efficacy of mesh placement in incisional hernia (IH) prevention after elective abdominal surgeries has been supported by many published studies. This meta-analysis aimed at providing comprehensive and updated clinical implications of prophylactic mesh placement (PMP) for the prevention of IH as compared to primary suture closure (PSC).

Materials and methods

PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were systematically searched until March 3, 2020, for studies comparing the efficacy of PMP to PSC in abdominal surgeries. The main outcome of interest was the incidence of IH at different follow-up durations. All statistical analyses were carried out using Review Manager version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) and Stata 11.0 (Stata Corporation LP, College Station, TX). The data were pooled using the random-effects model, and odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

A total of 3,330 were identified initially and after duplicate removal and exclusion based on title and abstract, 26 studies comprising 3,000 patients, were included. The incidence of IH was significantly reduced for PMP at follow-up periods of one year (OR= 0.16 [0.05, 0.51]; p=0.002; I²=77%), two years (OR= 0.23 [0.12, 0.45]; p<0.0001; I²=68%), three years (OR= 0.30 [0.16, 0.59]; p=0.0004; I²= 52%), and five years (OR=0.15 [0.03, 0.85]; p=0.03; I²=87%). However, PMP was associated with an increased risk of seroma (OR=1.67 [1.10, 2.55]; p= 0.02; I²=19%) and chronic wound pain (OR=1.71 [1.03, 2.83]; p= 0.04; I²= 0%). No significant difference between the PMP and PSC groups was noted for postoperative hematoma (OR= 1.04 [0.43, 2.50]; p=0.92; I²=0%), surgical site infection (OR=1.09 [0.78, 1.52]; p= 0.62; I²=12%), wound dehiscence (OR=0.69 [0.30, 1.62]; p=0.40; I²= 0%), gastrointestinal complications (OR= 1.40 [0.76, 2.58]; p=0.28; I²= 0%), length of hospital stay (WMD= -0.49 [-1.45, 0.48]; p=0.32; I²=0%), and operating time (WMD=9.18 [-7.17, 25.54]; p= 0.27; I²=80%).

Conclusions

PMP has been effective in reducing the rate of IH in the high-risk population at all time intervals, but it is associated with an increased risk of seroma and chronic wound pain. The benefits of mesh largely outweigh the risk, and it is linked with positive outcomes in high-risk patients.

Prevention of incisional hernia after midline laparotomy with prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication after abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) after midline laparotomy in reducing the incidence of incisional hernia.

Methods

A meta‐analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia after follow‐up of at least 12 months. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications. Only RCTs were included. A random‐effects model was used for the meta‐analysis, and trial sequential analysis was conducted.

Results

Twelve RCTs were included, comprising 1815 patients. The incidence of incisional hernia was significantly lower after PMR compared with sutured closure (risk ratio (RR) 0·35, 95 per cent c.i. 0·21 to 0·57; P < 0·001). Both onlay (RR 0·26, 0·11 to 0·67; P = 0·005) and retromuscular (RR 0·28, 0·10 to 0·82; P = 0·02) PMR led to a significant reduction in the rate of incisional hernia. The occurrence of seroma was higher in patients who had onlay PMR (RR 2·23, 1·10 to 4·52; P = 0·03). PMR did not result in an increased rate of surgical‐site infection.

Conclusion

PMR of a midline laparotomy using an onlay or retromuscular technique leads to a significant reduction in the rate of incisional hernia in high‐risk patients. Individual risk factors should be taken into account to select patients who will benefit most.

[Correction added on 19 February 2020, after first online publication: J. García Alamino has been amended to J. M. Garcia‐Alamino]

Prophylactic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Following Midline Laparotomy-Long-Term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Incisional hernia, a serious complication after laparotomy, is associated with high morbidity and costs. This trial examines the value of prophylactic intraperitoneal onlay mesh to reduce the risk of incisional hernia after a median follow-up time of 5.3 years.

METHODS

We conducted a parallel group, open-label, single center, randomized controlled trial (NCT01003067). After midline incision, the participants were either allocated to abdominal wall closure according to Everett with a PDS-loop running suture reinforced by an intraperitoneal composite mesh strip (Group A) or the same procedure without the additional mesh strip (Group B).

RESULTS

A total of 276 patients were randomized (Group A = 131; Group B = 136). Follow-up data after a median of 5.3 years after surgery were available from 183 patients (Group A = 95; Group B = 88). Incisional hernia was diagnosed in 25/95 (26%) patients in Group A and in 46/88 (52%) patients in Group B (risk ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.36-0.77; p < 0.001). Eighteen patients with asymptomatic incisional hernia went for watchful waiting instead of hernia repair and remained free of symptoms after of a median follow-up of 5.1 years. Between the second- and fifth-year follow-up period, no complication associated with the mesh could be detected.

CONCLUSION

The use of a composite mesh in intraperitoneal onlay position significantly reduces the risk of incisional hernia during a 5-year follow-up period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Ref. NCT01003067 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Prophylactic mesh augmentation: Patient selection, techniques, and early outcomes

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernias (IH) following abdominal surgery are frequent and morbid. Prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA) has emerged as a technique to reduce IH formation. We aim to report patient selection, techniques and early outcomes after PMA.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review identified descriptive characteristics, risk factors, operative technique, and early post-operative outcomes for PMA patients and matched non-PMA patients between January 1, 2016 and October 31, 2017.

RESULTS

18 consecutive PMA cases were performed (55.6% female, mean age 54.3 years and mean BMI = 29.5 kg/m²). 88.9% of patients had at least two high-risk features for IH. Zero PMA patients developed IH compared to 5.3% non-PMA patients (p = 0.314) (6-months mean follow-up). No difference in surgical site occurrences (SSO) were identified between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Early results are encouraging, demonstrating PMA is safe with equivocal SSO. Further studies are needed to assess if the reduction in IH formation is statistically significant with longer follow-up.

Prophylactic meshes in the abdominal wall

BACKGROUND

There is a high incidence of incisional hernias in specific high-risk patient populations. For these patients, the prophylactic placement of mesh during closure of the abdominal wall incision has been investigated in several prospective studies.

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to summarize and synthetize the currently available evidence on prophylactic meshes in a narrative review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic reviews were performed on the use of prophylactic meshes in different indications: midline laparotomies, stoma reversal wounds, and permanent stoma.

RESULTS

High-quality data from randomized trials shows that prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh implantation is safe and effective, both in prevention of incisional hernias after midline laparotomies and during construction of an elective end colostomy. It should be considered in patients with a high risk for incisional hernia development, such as those receiving open abdominal aortic aneurysm, obesity, or colorectal cancer surgery. It is strongly recommended for construction of an elective permanent end colostomy. For midline laparotomies, both the retromuscular and onlay positions of a prophylactic mesh seem equally effective and safe. For parastomal hernia prevention, only the retromuscular prophylactic mesh and its use for end colostomies has been proven to be effective and safe. No data support the choice of a biological mesh or a synthetic absorbable mesh over a non-absorbable synthetic mesh, even in clean-contaminated surgical procedures. No data yet support the standard use of prophylactic mesh when closing the wound during closure of a temporary stoma.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic mesh implantation should be standard of care during construction of an elective end colostomy and will become standard of care for midline laparotomies in patients at a high risk of incisional hernias.

Incisional hernia prevention and use of mesh. A narrative review

Incisional hernias are a very common problem, with an estimated incidence around 15-20% of all laparotomies. Evisceration is another important problem, with a lower rate (2.5-3%) but severe consequences for patients. Prevention of both complications is an essential objective of correct patient treatment due to the improved quality of life and cost savings. This narrative review intends to provide an update on incisional hernia and evisceration prevention. We analyze the current criteria for proper abdominal wall closure and the possibility to add prosthetic reinforcement in certain cases requiring it. Parastomal, trocar-site hernias and hernias developed after stoma closure are included in this review.

The State of Prophylactic Mesh Augmentation

Prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA) is the implantation of mesh during closure of an index laparotomy to decrease a patient's risk for developing incisional hernia (IH). The current body of evidence lacks refined guidelines for patient selection, mesh placement, and material choice. The purpose of this study is to summarize the literature and identify areas of research needed to foster responsible and appropriate use of PMA as an emerging technique. We conducted a comprehensive review of Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed, and clinicaltrials.gov for articles and trials related to using PMA for IH risk reduction. We further supplemented our review by including select papers on patient-reported outcomes, cost utility, risk modeling, surgical techniques, and available materials highly relevant to PMA. Five-hundred-fifty-one unique articles and 357 trials were reviewed. Multiple studies note a significant decrease in IH incidence with PMA compared with primary suture-only–based closure. No multicenter randomized control trial has been conducted in the United States, and only two such trials are currently active worldwide. Evidence exists supporting the use of PMA, with practical cost utility and models for selecting high-risk patients, but standard PMA guidelines are lacking. Although Europe has progressed with this technique, widespread adoption of PMA requires large-scale pragmatic randomized control trial research, strong evidence-based guidelines, current procedural terminology coding, and resolution of several barriers.

Prophylactic, Synthetic Intraperitoneal Mesh Versus No Mesh Implantation in Patients with Fascial Dehiscence

BACKGROUND

Primary closure of post-operative facial dehiscence (FD) is associated with a high incidence of recurrence, revisional surgery, and incisional hernia. This retrospective study compares outcomes of implantation of non-absorbable intra-abdominal meshes with primary closure of FD. The outcomes of different mesh materials were assessed in subgroup analysis.

METHODS

A total of 119 consecutive patients with FD were operated (70 mesh group and 49 no mesh group) between 2001 and 2015. Primary outcome parameter was hernia-free survival. Secondary outcome parameters include re-operations of the abdominal wall, intestinal fistula, surgical site infections (SSI), and mortality. Kaplan-Meier analysis for hernia-free survival, adjusted Poisson regression analysis for re-operations and adjusted regression analysis for chronic SSI was performed.

RESULTS

Hernia-free survival was significantly higher in the mesh group compared to the no mesh group (P = 0.005). Fewer re-operations were necessary in the mesh group compared to the no mesh group (adjusted incidence risk ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.93, P = 0.032). No difference in SSI, intestinal fistula, and mortality was observed between groups. Chronic SSI was observed in 7 (10%) patients in the mesh group (n = 3 [6.7%] with polypropylene mesh and 4 [28.6%] with polyester mesh). The risk for chronic SSI was significantly higher if a polyester mesh was used when compared to a polypropylene mesh (adjusted odds ratio 8.69, 95% CI 1.30-58.05, P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Implantation of a polypropylene but not polyester-based mesh in patients with FD decreases incisional hernia with a low rate of mesh-related morbidity.

Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement versus primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): 2-year follow-up of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent long-term complication after abdominal surgery, with a prevalence greater than 30% in high-risk groups. The aim of the PRIMA trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of mesh reinforcement in high-risk patients, to prevent incisional hernia.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial at 11 hospitals in Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands. We included patients aged 18 years or older who were undergoing elective midline laparotomy and had either an abdominal aortic aneurysm or a body-mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m² or higher. We randomly assigned participants using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to one of three treatment groups: primary suture; onlay mesh reinforcement; or sublay mesh reinforcement. The primary endpoint was incidence of incisional hernia during 2 years of follow-up, analysed by intention to treat. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were estimated by logistic regression. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761475.

FINDINGS

Between March, 2009, and December, 2012, 498 patients were enrolled to the study, of whom 18 were excluded before randomisation. Therefore, we included 480 patients in the primary analysis: 107 were assigned primary suture only, 188 were allocated onlay mesh reinforcement, and 185 were assigned sublay mesh reinforcement. 92 patients were identified with an incisional hernia, 33 (30%) who were allocated primary suture only, 25 (13%) who were assigned onlay mesh reinforcement, and 34 (18%) who were assigned sublay mesh reinforcement (onlay mesh reinforcement vs primary suture, OR 0·37, 95% CI 0·20-0·69; p=0·0016; sublay mesh reinforcement vs primary suture, 0·55, 0·30-1·00; p=0·05). Seromas were more frequent in patients allocated onlay mesh reinforcement (34 of 188) than in those assigned primary suture (five of 107; p=0·002) or sublay mesh reinforcement (13 of 185; p=0·002). The incidence of wound infection did not differ between treatment groups (14 of 107 primary suture; 25 of 188 onlay mesh reinforcement; and 19 of 185 sublay mesh reinforcement).

INTERPRETATION

A significant reduction in incidence of incisional hernia was achieved with onlay mesh reinforcement compared with sublay mesh reinforcement and primary suture only. Onlay mesh reinforcement has the potential to become the standard treatment for high-risk patients undergoing midline laparotomy.

FUNDING

Baxter; B Braun Surgical SA.

Incidence of Port-Site Hernias: A Survey and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The impact of laparoscopy on the prevalence of incisional hernias remains unclear. The aim of this study is to determine (1) surgeon perceptions of port-site hernias (PSHs), (2) the true incidence of PSH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey on PSH was given to determine the surgeon-reported rate of PSH. A literature review was performed for studies with a primary outcome of PSH. Studies were evaluated using checklists, and scores were used to compare risk of bias. Risk of bias was graphed against PSH incidence.

RESULTS

From 38 surgeons surveyed, the surgeon perceived rate of PSH was a median (range) of 0.5% (0% to 5%) for ports ≤5 mm, 5% (0.1% to 20%) for ports extended, and 5% (0.1% to 40%) for ports ≥10 mm. Thirty studies showed a PSH rate from 0% to 39.3%. Higher quality studies reported higher rates of PSH.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons underestimate the incidence of PSH, but high-quality literature suggests that it may be nearly 40%.

Does prophylactic mesh placement in elective, midline laparotomy reduce the incidence of incisional hernia? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Operative intervention to correct incisional hernia affects 150,000 patients annually, with 1 in 3 repairs recurring within 9 years. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of incisional hernia and postoperative complications in elective midline laparotomy patients after the use of prophylactic mesh placement and primary suture closure.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing prophylactic mesh placement to primary suture closure in elective, midline laparotomy at index abdominal aponeurosis closure. The primary outcome was incisional hernia. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included (2,114 patients), with 1,152 receiving prophylactic mesh placement. Prophylactic mesh placement decreased the risk of incisional hernia overall when compared to primary suture closure (relative risk = 0.15; P < .00001) and in trials using only polypropylene mesh versus 4:1 primary suture closure (relative risk = 0.15; P = .003). Prophylactic mesh placement reduced the risk of incisional hernia regardless of mesh location or composition: onlay (relative risk = 0.07; P < .0001), retrorectus (relative risk = 0.04; P = .002), and preperitoneal (relative risk = 0.18; P = .02). Prophylactic mesh placement increased risk of seroma overall (relative risk = 1.95; P < .0001), onlay (relative risk = 2.43; P = .01) and preperitoneal (relative risk = 1.47; P = .01) but not retrorectus plane (relative risk = 1.55; P = .26). Polypropylene mesh increased seroma risk only in the onlay position (relative risk = 2.77; P = .04). Prophylactic mesh placement patients are at increased risk for chronic wound pain compared to primary suture closure (relative risk = 1.70; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic mesh placement is associated with an 85% postoperative incisional hernia risk reduction when compared to primary suture closure in at-risk patients undergoing elective, midline laparotomy closure. This technique appears to be safe with comparable complication profiles, barring an increased risk of seroma, especially with the onlay technique, and the possibility for an increased risk of chronic pain. Despite this verification, evidence from large domestic trials that sufficiently addresses major knowledge gaps is simply lacking.

Prevention of Incisional Hernias with Biological Mesh: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background

Prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during closure of abdominal wall incisions has been proposed in patients with increased risk for development of incisional hernias (IHs). As part of the BioMesh consensus project, a systematic literature review has been performed to detect those studies where MAR was performed with a non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic).

Methods

A computerized search was performed within 12 databases (Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, Pubmed publisher, Lilacs, Scielo, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google Scholar) with appropriate search terms. Qualitative evaluation was performed using the MINORS score for cohort studies and the Jadad score for randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Results

For midline laparotomy incisions and stoma reversal wounds, two RCTs, two case–control studies, and two case series were identified. The studies were very heterogeneous in terms of mesh configuration (cross linked versus non-cross linked), mesh position (intraperitoneal versus retro-muscular versus onlay), surgical indication (gastric bypass versus aortic aneurysm), outcome results (effective versus non-effective). After qualitative assessment, we have to conclude that the level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of biological meshes for prevention of IHs is very low. No comparative studies were found comparing biological mesh with synthetic non-absorbable meshes for the prevention of IHs.

Conclusion

There is no evidence supporting the use of non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic) for prevention of IHs when closing a laparotomy in high-risk patients or in stoma reversal wounds. There is no evidence that a non-permanent absorbable mesh should be preferred to synthetic non-absorbable mesh, both in clean or clean-contaminated surgery.

Prophylactic mesh placement for prevention of incisional hernia after open bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic mesh during laparotomy has been shown to be effective in preventing postoperative incisional hernia (IH) in high-risk patients. Since obesity is a risk factor for IH, we wished to determine whether mesh prevents IH in open and laparoscopic bariatric surgery patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. Seven studies met inclusion criteria. We abstracted data regarding postoperative IH development, surgical site infection, and seroma or wound leakage and performed meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The prophylactic mesh group had significantly decreased odds of developing IH than the standard closure group (odds ratio, .30, 95% CI, .13 to .68, P = .004). No included studies evaluated outcomes after prophylactic mesh during laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh during open bariatric surgery appears to be beneficial in reducing postoperative IH without significant increasing the odds of surgical site infection or seroma or wound leakage. Higher quality studies, including those in laparoscopic patients, and cost-utility analysis, are needed to support routine use of this intervention.

Xenograft biologic mesh in parietal and general surgery: Technical assessment and review of clinical effectiveness and safety data

STUDY AIM

To describe the main technical characteristics of biologic prostheses used for parietal reinforcement and to present the state of the art on their risk/benefit ratio.

METHODS

We conducted a technical analysis of manufacturer specifications of the biologic prostheses that are currently available in France accompanied by a literature review by selecting meta-analyses and systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and publications of health technology rating agencies.

RESULTS

Biological implants for parietal reinforcement are mainly intended for use in a contaminated environment where the use of synthetic prostheses is contra-indicated. We identified fourteen systematic reviews and meta-analyses and one randomized controlled trial. Six ongoing clinical trials were identified as well as two clinical trials that had been interrupted. In the current state of knowledge, there are no high-level evidence data on the therapeutic contribution of biologic prostheses that allow prioritization of the various biologic prostheses according to their characteristics or their different manufacturing processes.

CONCLUSION

Pending the results of current randomized controlled trials to validate the indications and an eventual specific reimbursement, indications for the use of biologic parietal reinforcement prostheses seems to be limited to rare clinical situations and only after collegial discussion.

Prevention of Incisional Hernias by Prophylactic Mesh-augmented Reinforcement of Midline Laparotomies for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The incidence of incisional hernias after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is high. Prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during laparotomy closure has been proposed in patients at high risk of incisional hernia.

METHODS

A multicenter randomized trial was conducted on patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair through a midline laparotomy (Clinical.Trials.gov: NCT00757133). In the study group, retromuscular mesh-augmented reinforcement was performed with a large-pore polypropylene mesh (Ultrapro, width 7.5 cm). The primary endpoint was the incidence of incisional hernias at 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Between February 2009 and January 2013, 120 patients were recruited at 8 Belgian centers. Patients' characteristics at baseline were similar between groups. Operative and postoperative characteristics showed no difference in morbidity or mortality. The cumulative incidence of incisional hernias at 2-year follow-up after conventional closure was 28% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%-41%) versus 0% (95% CI, 0%-6%) after mesh-augmented reinforcement (P < 0.0001; Fisher exact test). The estimated "freedom of incisional hernia" curves (Kaplan-Meier estimate) were significantly different across study arms (χ = 19.5, P < 0.0001; Mantel-Cox test). No adverse effect related to mesh-augmented reinforcement was observed, apart from an increased mean time to close the abdominal wall for mesh-augmented reinforcement compared with the control group: 46 minutes (SD, 18.6) versus 30 minutes (SD, 18.5), respectively (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney U test).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic retromuscular mesh-augmented reinforcement of a midline laparotomy in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm is safe and effectively prevents the development of incisional hernia during 2 years, with an additional mean operative time of 16 minutes.