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

Complete Abdominal Evisceration After Open Hysterectomy: A Case Report and Evidence-Based Review

Background/Objectives: Despite its low incidence, complete postoperative abdominal evisceration represents a complication requiring an urgent solution. We aimed to present a rare case of an abdominal evisceration of the omentum and small-bowel loops after a total abdominal hysterectomy and review the literature regarding this condition's diagnosis and therapeutic management. Case report: On the sixth postoperative day for a uterine fibroid, a 68-year-old patient presented with an abdominal evisceration of the omentum and small bowel that occurred two hours before. An emergency laparotomy was performed to correct the evisceration and restore the integrity of the abdominal wall structure. The literature review was carried out in the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases using the terms "abdominal wall dehiscence", "abdominal evisceration", "open abdomen", "burst abdomen", "abdominal fascial dehiscence", "abdominal dehiscence post-hysterectomy", and "hysterectomy complications" by identifying all-time articles published in English. Results: Seven studies were included in this electronic search. The early diagnosis of abdominal evisceration, the identification of risk factors and comorbidities, followed by the choice of surgical technique, and postoperative follow-up were parts of the standard algorithm for managing this life-threatening case. Conclusions: Abdominal evisceration, as a surgical emergency, requires the diagnosis and treatment of this complication alongside the identification of the risk factors that can lead to its occurrence, as well as careful postoperative monitoring adapted to each case.

Prophylactic Mesh Augmentation of Midline Closure in Patients Undergoing Resection for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Reduces the Rate of Incisional Hernia: Results of a Case-Series Study

Incisional hernias represent a far more common complication after midline incisions than previously estimated. Patients with upper gastrointestinal tract malignancies represent a group of patients at increased risk for incisional hernia formation after undergoing major surgery. Our prospectively designed study included 50 patients who underwent onlay synthetic mesh augmentation of their midline closure along with closure using the small bites technique. At a 12-month follow-up, no incisional hernias were documented. A significant decrease compared to historical controls was achieved, with few minor complications. Mesh augmentation of midline closure in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract malignancies can significantly reduce subsequent incisional hernia formation.

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 to prevent incisional hernia in laparotomy for ovarian tumors

OBJECTIVE

Incisional hernias are a common complication of midline laparotomies. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of prophylactic mesh placement after midline laparotomy for ovarian tumors on the incidence of incisional hernia.

METHODS

We collected retrospective data from patients undergoing midline laparotomy for borderline or ovarian cancer with at least 12 months of follow-up, including those with and without mesh. Patient demographics, preoperative characteristics and risk factors for hernia were reported and grouped according to prophylactic mesh placement. A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify independent risk factors for incisional hernia. Kaplan-Meier curves illustrating the cumulative incidence of incisional hernia based on mesh placement were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 139 consecutive patients with available data were included, 58 in the non-mesh group and 81 in the mesh group, with high body mass index (BMI) as the most common reason for mesh placement. The mean (SD)) age was 60 years (13.97). A total of 11 patients (7.9%) had borderline tumors while 128 (92.1%) had invasive cancer. After clinical and radiological examination, 18.7% (26/139) of patients developed incisional hernia at a median follow-up of 35.8 months (IQR) 43.8): 31% (18/58) were detected in the non-mesh group, and 9.9% (8/81) in the mesh group (p<0.002). Multivariate analysis showed no-mesh placement (OR) 10; 95% CI) 2.8 to 35.919; p<0.001) as a significant risk factor for incisional hernia. Age ≥ 70 (OR 4.3; 95% CI 1.24 to 15; p=0.02) and BMI ≥ 29 (OR 4.4; 95% CI 1.27 to 14.93; p=0.019) were also identified as independent risk factors for hernia development. According to Kaplan-Meier curves, the cumulative incidence of incisional hernia was higher in the non-mesh group (p=0.002).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of incisional hernia was high in patients undergoing midline laparotomy for ovarian tumors. The addition of a prophylactic mesh may reduce this incidence, therefore there is a need to consider it as an option for high-risk patients, particularly those aged over 70 years or with a BMI ≥ 29 kg/m2.

State of the Art: Advances in Hernia Care

The field of hernia surgery has seen many recent advances and continues to evolve. Care of the hernia patient begins preoperatively by ensuring adequate preparation for surgery with surgeons now having the opportunity to accurately predict risk which can aid with informed consent. Imaging studies can now help surgeons diagnose and plan hernia surgery on an individual level based on hernia characteristics as well as abdominal wall musculature. In the operating room, new technology and surgical techniques have allowed surgeons to become increasingly sophisticated with goals of reducing tension on midline closures, utilizing minimally invasive and robotic techniques, and availability of new and varied mesh prosthetics. While modest improvements in outcomes have been witnessed by these advances, there is still opportunity for improvement which will be realized by continued research, use of registries, and education and training. Hernia prevention strategies focusing on minimally invasive surgery, laparotomy closure, and the use of prophylactic mesh will also help with the burden of incisional hernias. These advances in hernia surgery have led to the new field of Abdominal Core Health which helps represent this evolving and growing new subspecialty of general surgery.

Hernia Correction After Liver Transplantation Using Nonvascularized Fascia

Background

Liver transplantation is an increasingly frequent surgical procedure, with elevated rates of postoperative incisional hernias ranging from 5% to 46%. There are numerous known risk factors for incisional hernia, including the type of incision, patient sex, and presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, ascites, older age, and the use of steroids. Most studies on the treatment of incisional hernias in patients who have undergone liver transplantation have shown consistently high rates of complications. Consequently, we propose the use of nonvascular fascia for the symptomatic treatment of incisional hernias in patients with concomitant liver transplantation.

Methods

We performed our new technique on 8 patients, who had previously undergone liver transplantation, between January 2019 and January 2023. The patients were examined using imaging techniques during the follow-up period.

Results

Of the 8 patients, 7 were liver transplant recipients and 1 was a combined liver-kidney transplant patient. The median donor age was 57 y (5-66 y), whereas the mean recipient age was 58 y (31-66 y). The median patient height and weight were 163 cm (117-185 cm) and 76 kg (17-104 kg), respectively. Immunosuppression did not change in fascia recipients. The median time between transplantation and hernia repair surgery was 41 mo (5-116 mo). The sizes of the aponeurotic defects varied from 6 × 6 to 25 × 20 cm. Two patients experienced complications: one experienced bulging that required reintervention and the other experienced surgical site seroma. There was no mortality related to the use of the technique, and none were reported during follow-up.

Conclusions

With its promising results, nonvascularized fascial transplantation can be a successful treatment for incisional hernias in patients who had previously received a liver transplant.

Parietal complications after cystectomy: Incisional and parastomal hernia, epidemiology and risk factors

INTRODUCTION

Incisional and parastomal hernias are frequent complications after cystectomy. The aim of our study was to define their incidence, identify risk factors related to the patient and the surgical technique, and identify means of prevention.

MATERIAL

This was a multicenter, retrospective study, analyzing clinical and radiological data from 521 patients operated on for cystectomy between January 2010 and December 2020.

RESULTS

In total, 521 patients, 471 men and 50 women, mean age 68.8years, were included. Thirty-one patients (6.6%) presented with an evisceration. Risk factors were a history of evisceration (OR: 14.1; 95% CI: [3-66]; P=0.0008), COPD (OR: 3.5; 95% CI: [1.3-9 .4]; P=0.0119), ischemic heart disease (OR: 4; 95% CI: [1. 6-10]; P=0.0036), and split-stitch closure (OR: 3.1; 95% CI: [1.065-8.9]; P=0.0493). Fifty-one patients (9.9%) presented with an incisional hernia. Risk factors were a history of COPD (OR: 4, 95% CI: [2.1-7.6]; P<0.001) and postoperative pulmonary infection (OR: 5.3; 95% CI: [1.05-26.4]; P=0.0079). Seventy-nine patients (15.28%) had a parastomal hernia. Overweight was a risk factor (OR: 2.3; 95% CI: [1.3-4.5]; P=0.0073).

CONCLUSION

Patients who are overweight or have pulmonary comorbidities are at greater risk of developing parietal complications after cystectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Short-term outcomes of a multicentre prospective study using a "visible" polyvinylidene fluoride onlay mesh for the prevention of midline incisional hernia

INTRODUCTION

Prophylactic meshes in high-risk patients prevent incisional hernias, although there are still some concerns about the best layer to place them in, the type of fixation, the mesh material, the significance of the level of contamination, and surgical complications. We aimed to provide answers to these questions and information about how the implanted material behaves based on its visibility under magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHOD

This is a prospective multicentre observational cohort study. Preliminary results from the first 3 months are presented. We included general surgical patients who had at least two risk factors for developing an incisional hernia. Multivariate logistic regression was used. A polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mesh loaded with iron particles was used in an onlay position. MRIs were performed 6 weeks after treatment.

RESULTS

Between July 2016 and June 2022, 185 patients were enrolled in the study. Surgery was emergent in 30.3% of cases, contaminated in 10.7% and dirty in 11.8%. A total of 5.6% of cases had postoperative wound infections, with the requirement of stoma being the only significant risk factor (OR = 7.59, p = 0.03). The formation of a seroma at 6 weeks detected by MRI, was associated with body mass index (OR = 1.13, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic use of onlay PVDF mesh in midline laparotomies in high-risk patients was safe and effective in the short term, regardless of the type of surgery or the level of contamination. MRI allowed us to detect asymptomatic seromas during the early process of integration.

STUDY REGISTRATION

 This protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03105895).

Incisional hernias post renal transplant: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Incisional hernia (IH) post renal transplant (RT) is relatively uncommon and can be challenging to manage clinically due to the presence of the kidney graft and patient immunosuppression. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesises the current literature in relation to IH rates, risk factors and outcomes post RT.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to July 2023. The most up to date Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines were followed. Pertinent clinical information was synthesised. A meta-analysis of the pooled proportions of IH rates, the rates of patients requiring surgical repair and the rates of recurrence post RT are reported.

RESULTS

Twenty studies comprising 16,018 patients were included in this analysis. The pooled rate of IH occurrence post RT was 4% (CI 3-5%). The pooled rate of IH repair post RT was 61% (CI 14-100%). The pooled rate of IH recurrence after repair was 16% (CI 9-23%). Risk factors identified for IH development post RT are BMI, immunosuppression, age, smoking, incision type, reoperation, concurrent abdominal wall hernia, lymphocele formation and pulmonary disease.

CONCLUSIONS

IH post RT is uncommon and the majority of IH post RT are repaired surgically on an elective basis.

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.

Wound healing and hernia after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: Onlay self-gripping polyester mesh reinforcement compared with small bite sutured closure

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic mesh implantation following open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm is a debatable subject.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of a self-gripping polyester mesh used in on-lay technique to prevent incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 495 patients who underwent aortic surgery between May 2017 and May 2021. Patients included in the study underwent open surgical repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with closure of the abdominal wall with either small bite suture technique or prophylactic mesh reinforcement. Primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of incisional hernia during a two-year follow-up period. Secondary endpoints were mesh-related complications.

RESULTS

Mesh implantation with the on-lay technique was successful in all cases. No patient in the mesh group developed an incisional hernia during the 24-month follow-up period. Two patients in the non-mesh group developed a symptomatic incisional hernia during the follow-up period at 6 months. Three cases of post-operative access site complications were observed in the mesh group.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of a self-gripping polyester mesh using the on-lay technique demonstrates acceptable early-durability after open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. However, it appears to be associated with a number of post-operative access site complications.

A Comparison of a Small-Stitch Closure With a Standard Closure in Midline Laparotomy Incisions: A Prospective Comparative Study

Introduction Midline incision provides a rapid and thorough approach to the abdominal cavity and, therefore, is widely employed in both emergency and elective procedures. However, midline laparotomy is associated with many post-operative complications like wound dehiscence, incisional hernia, fistula formation, and surgical site infection (SSI). The purpose of the study is to compare the complications that occurred post-operatively in association with the long and small bite suture techniques for midline laparotomy incisions. Methodology A prospective comparative study was carried out among 90 cases of midline laparotomies for 18 months (January 2021 to June 2022). The participants were categorized into two groups: (1) Group A, which included 45 patients, underwent small-suture abdominal fascia closure, and (2) Group B, which consisted of the remaining 45 patients, underwent large-suture abdominal midline wound closure. Patients were followed up in the hospital till the day of discharge and in the outpatient department (visit 1, within one month of surgery) for pain, wound dehiscence, and surgical site infection. Patients were called for visit 2 (six months post-surgery) and incisional hernia rates were assessed. Results On the numerical pain rating scale, the mean score was higher in Group B, that is, 4.1 than in Group A, which was 3.5. Wound dehiscence and incisional hernia rates were higher among Group B cases. The majority of SSIs were noted in Group B with statistically significant results. Conclusion Despite the lack of randomization, the results demonstrated in this study support the use of small bite sutures in comparison to long bite sutures for laparotomy closure.

Hernia Formation: Risk Factors and Biology

The incidence of ventral hernias in the United States is in increasing. Herein, the author details the etiology of congenital and acquired ventral hernias as well as the risk factors associated with the development of each of these types of ventral hernias.

An obstetrician-gynecologist's review of hernias: risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and repair

Management of obstetrical and gynecologic patients with hernias poses challenges to providers. Risks for hernia development include well-described factors that impair surgical wound healing and increase abdominal pressure. Among the diverse populations cared for by obstetricians and gynecologists, pregnant patients and those with gynecologic malignancies are at the highest risk for hernia formation. This article provides an overview of the existing literature, with a focus on patients cared for by obstetrician-gynecologists and commonly encountered preoperative and intraoperative scenarios. We highlight scenarios when a hernia repair is not commonly performed, including those of patients undergoing nonelective surgeries with known or suspected gynecologic cancers. Finally, we offer multidisciplinary recommendations on the timing of elective hernia repair with obstetrical and gynecologic procedures, with attention to the primary surgical procedure, the type of preexisting hernia, and patient characteristics.

Prevention of incisional hernia after kidney transplantation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a common complication after kidney transplantation with an incidence of 1.6-18%. Concerning non-transplant patients, a recently published meta-analysis describes a reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia of up to 85% due to prophylactic mesh replacement in elective, midline laparotomy. The aim of our study is to show a reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia after kidney transplantation with minimal risk for complication.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing time to incisional hernia over a period of 24 months between patients undergoing kidney transplantation and standardized abdominal closure with or without prophylactic placement of ProGrip™ (Medtronic, Fridley, MN, USA) mesh in an onlay position. As we believe that the mesh intervention is superior to the standard procedure in reducing the incidence of hernia, this is a superiority trial.

DISCUSSION

The high risk for developing incisional hernia following kidney transplantation might be reduced by prophylactic mesh placement. ProGrip™ mesh features polylactic acid (PLA) microgrips that provide immediate, strong and uniform fixation. The use of this mesh combines the effectiveness demonstrated by the macropore propylene meshes in the treatment of incisional hernias, a high simplicity of use provided by its capacity for self-fixation that does not increase significantly surgery time, and safety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04794582. Registered on 08 March 2021. Protocol version 2.0. (02-18-2021).

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.

Prophylactic effect of retromuscular mesh placement during loop ileostomy closure on incisional hernia incidence-a multicentre randomised patient- and observer-blind trial (P.E.L.I.O.N trial)

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication following loop ileostomy reversal. Incisional hernias are associated with morbidity, loss of health-related quality of life and costs and warrant the investigation of prophylactic measures. Prophylactic mesh implantation at the time of surgical stoma reversal has shown to be a promising and safe method to prevent incisional hernias in this setting. However, the efficacy of this method has not yet been investigated in a large multicentre randomised-controlled trial (RCT) with adequate external validity. The P.E.L.I.O.N. trial will evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after loop ileostomy closure in decreasing the rate of incisional hernia versus standard closure alone.

METHODS

P.E.L.I.O.N. is a multicentre, patient- and observer-blind RCT. Patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure will undergo intraoperative 1:1 randomisation into either abdominal wall closure with a continuous slowly absorbable suture in small-stitch technique without mesh reinforcement (control group) or abdominal wall closure with an additional reinforcement with a retromuscular non-absorbable, macro-pore (pore size ≥ 1000 μm or effective porosity >0%) light-weight monofilament or mixed structure mesh. A total of 304 patients (152 per group) will need to be randomised in the study. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1,014 patients are expected to be screened for eligibility in order to recruit the necessary number of patients. The primary endpoint will be the frequency of incision hernias within 24 months according to the European Hernia Society definition. Secondary endpoints will be the frequency of surgical site occurrences (including surgical site infections, wound seromas and hematomas, and enterocutaneous fistulas), postoperative pain, the number of revision surgeries and health-related quality of life. Safety will be assessed by measuring postoperative complications ≥ grade 3 according to the Dindo-Clavien classification.

DISCUSSION

Depending on the results of the P.E.L.I.O.N. trial, prophylactic mesh implantation could become the new standard for loop ileostomy reversal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00027921, U1111-1273-4657.

Incisional hernia repair in rats: description of the sublay technique under videomagnification system

PURPOSE

To describe the technique of sublay correction of incisional hernia in Wistar rats under videomagnification system.

METHODS

Five male rats of the species Rattus norvegicus, of the Wistar lineage, with body weight between 250-350 g and 60 days old were used. Incisional hernia was inducted in all animals. After that, the incisional hernia was immediately corrected by the sublay method.

RESULTS

There were no cases of recurrence of the incisional hernia after placement of the polypropylene mesh using the sublay technique. No postoperative complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The technique is suitable for execution in Wistar rats.

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.

Prophylactic onlay mesh at emergency laparotomy: promising early outcomes with long-acting synthetic resorbable mesh

Background

Careful surgical strategy is paramount in balancing the prevention of fascial dehiscence, incisional hernia (IH) and fear of additional mesh‐related wound complications post‐laparotomy. This study aims to review early outcomes of patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy with prophylactic TIGR® mesh, used to reduce early fascial dehiscence and potential subsequent IH.

Method

A retrospective, ethically approved review of 24 consecutive patients undergoing prophylactic TIGR® mesh placement during emergency laparotomies by a single surgeon between January 2017 and June 2021 at a University Hospital. A standardized approach included onlay positioning of the mesh, small‐bite fascial closure, and a wound bundle. We recorded patient demographics, operative indications, findings, degree of peritonitis, postoperative complications, and mortality.

Result

The study included 24 patients; 16/24 (66.6%) were female and median age was 72.5 (range 31–86); 14/24 patients were ASA grade III or greater; 4/24 patients (16.6%) developed six complications and 3/6 occurred in a single patient. Complications included subphrenic abscess, seroma, intrabdominal hematoma, enterocutaneous fistula leading to deep wound infection and small bowel perforation. Five (20.8%) patients died in hospital; central venous catheter sepsis (n = 1), fungal septicaemia (n = 1) and multiorgan failure (n = 3). Surgical site infection and seroma rates were low, occurring in 2/24 patients (4% each).

Conclusion

This study has identified that prophylactic onlay mesh in patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy is not associated with significant wound infection or seroma when used with an active wound bundle. The wider use of TIGR® to prevent fascial dehiscence and potential long‐term IH prevention should be considered.

Colostomy Reversal following Hartmann’s Procedure: The Importance of Timing in Short- and Long-Term Complications: A Retrospective Multicentric Study

The restoration of bowel continuity following Hartmann’s Procedure (HP) has been reported hitherto with high morbidity and mortality rates. No clear guidelines exist about timing in Hartmann’s Reversal (HR), the literature data being conflicting. We have sought to investigate the effect of the interval time between HP and HR in short- and long-term HR outcomes through a retrospective study based on consecutive patients undergoing HR between 2009 and 2017 in two regional hospitals in Italy. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, intra- and post-operative data, as well as early complications, were recorded. Long-term data were collected on the surgical site occurrences of Incisional Ventral Hernia (IVH). One hundred and five patients were recruited for the study. Late HR, female gender, and long operating time were related to the highest incidence of peri-operative complications. Patients who developed IVH had undergone HR at significantly shorter times and had a higher Body Mass Index (BMI). The timing of HR seems to be an important variable linked to the onset of early and late post-operative complications. The patients submitted to early HR show a significantly lower complication rate but, at the same time, a higher rate of IVH incidence after restorative surgery. These data, in our opinion, reflect the need for planning, where possible, an early restoration of bowel continuity after HP.

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.

Examination of abdominal wall perfusion using varying suture techniques for midline abdominal laparotomy closure

BACKGROUND

With a growing interest in the primary prevention of incisional hernias, it has been hypothesized that different suturing techniques may cause various levels of tissue ischemia. Using ICG laser-induced fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA), we studied the effect of different suture materials and closure techniques on abdominal wall perfusion.

METHODS

Fifteen porcine subjects underwent midline laparotomy, bilateral skin flap creation, and three separate 7 cm midline fascial incisions. Animals underwent fascial closure with 5 different techniques: (1) Running 0-PDS® II (polydioxanone) Suture with large bites; (2) Running 0-PDS II Suture with small bites; (3) Interrupted figure-of-eight (8) PDS II Suture, (4) Running 0-barbed STRATAFIX™ Symmetric PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device large bite; (5) Running 0-STRATAFIX Symmetric PDS Plus Device small bites. ICG-FA signal intensity was recorded prior to fascial incision (baseline), immediately following fascial closure (closure), and at one-week (1-week.). Post-mortem, the abdominal walls were analyzed for inflammation, neovascularity, and necrosis.

RESULTS

PDS II Suture with small bites, fascial closure at the caudal 1/3 of the abdominal wall, and the 1-week time period were all independently associated with increased tissue perfusion. There was also a significant increase in tissue perfusion from closure to 1-week when using small bites PDS II Suture compared to PDS II Suture figure-of-8 (p < 0.001) and a trend towards significance when compared with large bites PDS II Suture (p = 0.056). Additionally, the change in perfusion from baseline to 1 week with small bites was higher than with figure of 8 (p = 0.002). Across all locations, small bite PDS II Suture has greater total inflammation than figure of 8 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that the small bite technique increases abdominal wall perfusion and ICG-FA technology can reliably map abdominal wall perfusion. This finding may help explain the reduced incisional hernia rates seen in clinical studies with the small bite closure technique.

Umbilical incisional hernias (M3): are trocar-site hernias different? Comparative analysis of the EVEREG registry⋆

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia (HI), in open and laparoscopic surgery, is a very frequent complication. HI located in the umbilical region are called M3. The main aim of this study is to compare HI produced by the placement of an umbilical laparoscopic trocar (M3T) with those located in M3 in open surgery (M3O) in terms of basal characteristics, complications and recurrences; and secondarily the identification of risk factors.

METHOD

Cross-sectional observational study based on the national prospective registry EVEREG during the period of July 2012-June 2018. The main variables were recurrences and postoperative complications. Both groups (M3T and M3O) were compared. Multiple logistic regression was performed to identify the risk factors of the entire cohort.

RESULTS

882 had a follow-up time longer than 12 months. M3O group presented superior ASA-Class, more complex HI and previous repair. It also presented a higher recurrence rate at 12 and 24 months (8.6% vs. 2.5%; P < 0,0001 and 9.3% vs. 2.9%; P < 0.0001) and higher postoperative complications rate (21.9% vs. 14.6 %; P = 0.02). Previous repair, intervention length and associated procedures requirement were identified as risk factors for postoperative complications. Absence of a specialist present during surgery, previous repair, and the absence of complications were identified as risk factors for recurrence. In the PSM analysis no differences were detected in of complications and recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

HI M3O is more complex than M3T. The complexity is not related to the origin of the hernia but to its characteristics and those of the patient.

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.

Is prophylactic mesh closure effective to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy in colorectal surgery?

BACKGROUND

few studies have studied prophylactic mesh closure after laparotomy for colorectal surgery.

METHODS

a retrospective cohort study was performed to compare patients with and without prophylactic mesh closure after open colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

309 patients were included from January 2014 to December 2016. Prophylactic mesh closure was performed in 98 patients (31.7%). After a mean follow-up of 21.7 months, incisional hernia was developed in 9 and 54 patients in the group with and without mesh respectively (9.2% vs. 25.7%, OR = 0.3, p = 0.001). In the multivariate Cox model prophylactic mesh closure was associated with a protective effect on incisional hernia development with a Hazard Ratio of 0.46 (p = 0.033). Surgical site infection was more frequent in the mesh group (19.4% vs. 9.5%, OR = 2.3, p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

prophylactic mesh closure is effective to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia after colorectal surgery.

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

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of emergency laparotomy closure with and without prophylactic mesh.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed via literature databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Studies were examined for eligibility and included if they compared prophylactic mesh closure to the conventional laparotomy closure following emergency abdominal surgery. Both acute wound failure and incisional hernia (IH) occurence were our primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI), seroma/hematoma formation, Clavien-Dindo complications (score ≥ 3), total operative time, and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four comparative studies with a total of 817 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall acute wound failure and incisional hernia rate was significantly lower in the mesh group compared to non-mesh group (odd ratio (OR) 0.23, p = 0.002) and (OR 0.21, p = 0.00001), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the following outcomes: total operative time (mean difference (MD) 21.44, p = 0.15), SSI (OR 1.47, p = 0.06), seroma/haematoma formation (OR 2.74, p = 0.07), grade ≥ 3 Clavien-Dindo complications (OR 2.39, p = 0.28), and LOS (MD 0.26, p = 0.84).

CONCLUSION

The current evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh in emergency laparotomy is diverse and obscure. Although the data trends towards a reduction in the incidence of IH, a reliable conclusion requires further high-quality RCTs to fully assess the efficacy and safety of mesh use in an emergency setting.

Stoma creation is associated with a low incidence of midline incisional hernia after colorectal surgery: the "fighting over the fascia" theory concerning the incision and stoma hole

PURPOSE

Parastomal hernia (PH) develops more frequently than incisional hernia (IH) after colorectal surgery with stoma. This study evaluated our hypothesis that inward traction of the fascia when closing a midline incision widens the stoma hole and increases the incidence of PH.

METHODS

A total of 795 patients who underwent colorectal resection between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The risk classification was constructed from IH risk factors extracted from the non-stoma group. Then, the classification was extrapolated to the stoma group for predicting midline IH and PH.

RESULTS

The incidence of IH was 5.3% in the stoma group and 12.5% in the non-stoma group (p = 0.005). PH developed in 19.6% of 97 patients with permanent stoma. The risk classification was able to predict PH without a significant difference but was well balanced in patients with permanent stoma; however, it failed to predict IH in the stoma group.

CONCLUSION

The risk classification constructed from the non-stoma group was useful for predicting not midline IH but PH, suggesting that the stoma site was the most vulnerable for herniation. The "fighting over the fascia" theory between the midline incision and stoma hole may explain the causal relationship between the midline IH and PH.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Despite the fact that emergency midline laparotomy is a risk factor for an incisional hernia, active research on hernia prevention in emergency settings is lacking. Different kinds of meshes and mesh positions have been studied in elective abdominal surgery, but no randomized controlled trials in emergency settings have been published thus far.

Method

The PREEMER trial (registration number NCT04311788) is a multicentre, patient- and assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial to be conducted in six hospitals in Finland. A total of 244 patients will be randomized at a 1 : 1 ratio to either the retrorectus mesh group, featuring a self-gripping prophylactic mesh, or to the no mesh (control) group, both closed by small-stitch 4 : 1 closure with continuous slowly absorbable monofilament suturing. The primary outcome of the PREEMER trial is the incidence of incisional hernia 2 years after surgery, which will be detected clinically and/or radiologically. Secondary outcomes are the Comprehensive Complication Index score, incidence of surgical-site infections and fascial dehiscence within 30 days of surgery; the incisional hernia repair rate and mesh- or hernia-related reoperations within the 2- and 5-year follow-ups; the incidence of incisional hernia within the 5-year follow-up; and quality of life measured by RAND-36, the Activities Assessment Scale and the PROMIS questionnaire within 30 days and 2 and 5 years from surgery. Additionally, health–economic explorative measures will be explored.

Conclusion

The PREEMER trial will provide level 1 evidence on incisional hernia prevention in an emergency setting.

Registration number

NCT04311788 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). Registered 7 March 2020.

The Voodoo that We Do: Controversies in General Surgery

Incisional hernia remains a common complication following abdominal surgery, and its incidence can be reduced with standardized wound closure techniques. Robust evidence exists to support certain fascial closure methods, such as using a small bites, 4-to-1, continuous slow absorbable suture technique for elective midline laparotomies. On the other hand, there are other common surgical practices that lack quality data to support their routine use, such as abdominal binders, negative-pressure wound therapy, and reapproximation of subcutaneous tissue.

Implementing a protocol to prevent incisional hernia in high-risk patients: a mesh is a powerful tool

PURPOSE

The small bites (SB) technique for closure of elective midline laparotomies (EMLs) and a prophylactic mesh (PM) in high-risk patients are suggested by the guidelines to prevent incisional hernias (IHs) and fascial dehiscence (FD). Our aim was to implement a protocol combining both the techniques and to analyze its outcomes.

METHODS

Prospective data of all EMLs were collected for 2 years. Results were analyzed at 1 month and during follow-up. The incidence of HI and FD was compared by groups (M = Mesh vs. S = suture) and by subgroups depending on using SB.

RESULTS

A lower number of FD appeared in the M group (OR 0.0692; 95% CI 0.008-0.56; P = 0.01) in 197 operations. After a mean follow-up of 29.23 months (N = 163; min. 6 months), with a lower frequency of IH in M group (OR 0.769; 95% CI 0.65-0.91; P < 0.0001). (33) The observed differences persisted after a propensity matching score: FD (OR 0.355; 95% CI 0.255-0.494; P < 0.0001) and IH (OR 0.394; 95% CI 0.24-0.61; P < 0.0001). On comparing suturing techniques by subgroups, both mesh subgroups had better outcomes. PM was the main factor related to the reduction of IH (HR 11.794; 95% CI 4.29-32.39; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Following the protocol using PM and SB showed a lower rate of FD and HI. A PM is safe and effective for the prevention of both HI and FD after MLE, regardless of the closure technique used.

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.

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.

Does immunosuppression use increase perioperative wound morbidity in patients undergoing transversus abdominis release?

BACKGROUND

Transversus abdominis release is an effective procedure for complex ventral hernias. As wound complications contribute to hernia recurrences, mitigating risk factors is vitally important for hernia surgeons. Although immunosuppression can impair wound healing, it has inconsistently predicted wound occurrences, and its effect on wound morbidity after a transversus abdominis release is unknown.

METHODS

Patients undergoing either an elective open or robotic bilateral transversus abdominis release with permanent synthetic mesh were retrospectively stratified by perioperative immunosuppression and secondarily by procedure type (open versus robotic) and immunosuppression.

RESULTS

A total of 321 patients were included for analysis. Overall, 63 (19.6%) patients were on chronic immunosuppression, with history of solid-organ transplant being the most common indication (43 patients). Patients stratified by perioperative immunosuppression were well-matched with similar defect size (P = .97), body mass index ≥30 (P = .32), diabetes (P = .09), history of surgical site infection (P = .53), surgical approach (P = .53), and tobacco use history (P = .33). No differences between cohorts were elicited for any wound event when stratified by immunosuppression use. Similarly, no differences were elicited when cohorts were further stratified also by procedure type.

CONCLUSION

Chronic immunosuppression is often viewed as a notable risk factor for wound occurrences after surgery. However, our data suggest immunosuppression may not significantly increase the risk of perioperative wound morbidity follow transversus abdominis release as previously predicted.

Comparative analysis of 2 surgical techniques in the treatment of subxiphoid incisional hernia. Observational study

INTRODUCTION

The surgical procedure to repair a subxiphoid incisional hernia is a complex technique due to the anatomical area that it appears. The objective of our study is the analysis of the results obtained with the different surgical techniques performed in our center for 9 years, especially postoperative complications and the recurrence rate.

METHODS

It is an observational, retrospective study from January 2011 to January 2019 of patients operated of subxiphoid incisional hernia in our Unit. We analysed the comorbidities, surgical techniques (preperitoneal hernia repair or TP, and adjusted double mesh technique) and postoperative variable, especially the hernia recurrence. The postoperative complications were summarized flowing the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

42 patients were operated: 22 (52,4%) TP and 20 (47,6%) adjusted double mesh technique. All the complications registered were minor (grade I) and it appeared mostly in TP group (P = .053). The average follow up was 25.8 ± 15.1 months; there were no statistically significant differences in hernia recurrence comparing two treatment groups (P = .288).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our results, TP is the ideal technique to repair a subxiphoid incisional hernia. Adjusted double mesh technique may represent an effective approach with a low complication rate, although globally analyzing the recurrence rate, aponeurosis closure over the preperitoneal mesh entails less impact on it.

Risk-benefit assessment of onlay and retrorectus mesh augmentation for incisional hernia prophylaxis: A secondary analysis from network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mesh augmentation has proved efficacious for the prevention of incisional hernia (IH). A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) identified onlay and retrorectus mesh (OM and RM) as the most effective therapeutic options, but the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and other complications require additional consideration.

METHODS

The NMA generated pooled risk differences (RD) for the benefits of reducing IH and the risk of SSI and composite seroma/hematoma (CSH) for use in Monte-Carlo data simulations with 1000 replications. Mean incremental risk-benefit ratios (IRBR), i.e., the ratio of incremental risk (or RD) and incremental benefit, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated with a probability of risk-benefits (PRB) across risk-benefit acceptability thresholds from the acceptability curves generated.

RESULTS

The RDs of IH were 0.237 and 0.201 lower in OM and RM than primary suture closure, compared to 0.027 and -0.001 for SSI. IRBRs (95% CI) for SSI risk were -0.118 (-0.124, -0.112) and 0.006 (-0.002, 0.013) for OM and RM, respectively. PRBs were much higher in RM than OM, especially at low acceptability thresholds of 0.05 and 0.1. IRBRs (95% CI) for CSH were -0.388 (-0.395, -0.381) and -0.105 (-0.111, -0.100) for OM and RM, respectively. RM yielded a PRB of 0.87 at an acceptability threshold of 0.2, in contrast to OM, which did not.

CONCLUSION

Overall, RM offered improved benefit in IH prophylaxis over the risk of complications relative to OM and appeared to be the preferred treatment option for this indication.

Reconstrucción de la pared abdominal en pacientes con inmunosupresión: experiencia en una institución de alta complejidad

Introducción. Los pacientes con inmunosupresión llevados a cirugía abdominal convencional tienen un mayor riesgo de desarrollar hernias incisionales en el posoperatorio, y cuando ellas ocurren, es necesario individualizar el procedimiento quirúrgico de elección, según las características anatómicas, fisiológicas y clínicas de cada paciente. Este estudio describe las características demográficas y clínicas de los pacientes con inmunosupresión, llevados a reconstrucción de la pared abdominal, y sus desenlaces después de 30 días del procedimiento quirúrgico. Métodos. Serie de casos de pacientes con inmunosupresión llevados a reconstrucción de la pared abdominal, en un centro especializado de cuarto nivel de complejidad. Se incluyeron pacientes mayores de 18 años, operados en el período de enero de 2016 a diciembre de 2019. Resultados. Se presenta una serie de 18 pacientes, cinco (27,7 %) con algún tipo de inmunosupresión primaria y 13 (72,2 %) con algún tipo de inmunosupresión secundaria. La edad promedio fue de 56 años, 11 (61 %) fueron mujeres, el peso promedio de los participantes fue de 73,3 kg. Se encontraron complicaciones en ocho pacientes (44,4 %). Dos pacientes requirieron manejo en la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos, por un máximo de tres días. Ninguno de los pacientes presentó recidiva de la hernia ni mortalidad. Discusión. La reconstrucción de la pared abdominal en pacientes inmunosuprimidos representa un reto para cualquier equipo quirúrgico debido a las condiciones especiales de los pacientes y a las variables asociadas al procedimiento. Las tasas de recidiva y de complicaciones de este estudio, se asemejan a las descritas en la literatura.

Abdominal incision defect following AAA-surgery (AIDA): 2-year results of prophylactic onlay-mesh augmentation in a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

The reported incidence of incisional hernia following repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) via midline laparotomy is up to 69%. This prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted at eleven hospitals in Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective AAA-repair via midline incision were randomly assigned using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to one of three groups for fascial closure: with long-term absorbable suture (MonoPlus^®, group I), long-term absorbable suture and onlay mesh reinforcement (group II) or extra long-term absorbable suture (MonoMax^®, group III). The primary endpoint was the incidence of incisional hernia within 24 months of follow-up, analysed by intention to treat. Physicians conducting the postoperative visits and the patients were blinded. Between February 2011 and July 2013, 104 patients (69.8 ± 7.7 years) were randomised, 99 of them received a study intervention. The rate of incisional hernia within 24 months was not significantly reduced with onlay mesh augmentation compared to primary suture (p = 0.290). Furthermore, the rate of incisional hernia did not differ significantly between fascial closure with slow and extra long-term absorbable suture (p = 0.111). Serious adverse events related to study intervention occurred in five patients (5.1%) from treatment groups II and III. Wound healing disorders were more frequently seen after onlay mesh implantation on the day of discharge (p = 0.010) and three (p = 0.009) and six (p = 0.023) months postoperatively. The existing evidence on prophylactic mesh augmentation in patients undergoing AAA-repair via midline laparotomy probably needs critical review. As the implementation of new RCTs is considered difficult due to the increasing number of endovascular AAA treated, registry studies could help to collect and evaluate data in cases of open AAA-repair. Comparisons between prophylactic mesh implantation and the small bite technique are also required. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01353443. Funding Sources: Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany.

Incidence, Burden on the Health Care System, and Factors Associated With Incisional Hernia After Trauma Laparotomy

Importance

The evidence provided supports routine and systematic capture of long-term outcomes after trauma, lengthening the follow-up for patients at risk for incisional hernia (IH) after trauma laparotomy (TL), counseling on the risk of IH during the postdischarge period, and consideration of preventive strategies before future abdominal operations to lessen IH prevalence as well as the patient and health care burden.

Objective

To determine burden of and factors associated with IH formation following TL at a population-based level across health care settings.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based cohort study included adult patients who were admitted with traumatic injuries and underwent laparotomy with follow-up of 2 or more years. The study used 18 statewide databases containing data collected from January 2006 through December 2016 and corresponding to 6 states in diverse regions of the US. Longitudinal outcomes were identified within the Statewide Inpatient, Ambulatory, and Emergency Department Databases. Patients admitted with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes for traumatic injuries with 1 or more concurrent open abdominal operations were included. Data analysis was conducted from March 2020 through June 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was IH after TL. Risk-adjusted Cox regression allowed identification of patient-level, operative, and postoperative factors associated with IH.

Results

Of 35 666 patients undergoing TL, 3127 (8.8%) developed IH (median [interquartile range] follow-up, 5.6 [3.4-8.6] years). Patients had a median age of 49 (interquartile range, 31-67) years, and most were male (21 014 [58.9%]), White (21 584 [60.5%]), and admitted for nonpenetrating trauma (28 909 [81.1%]). The 10-year IH rate and annual incidence were 11.1% (95% CI, 10.7%-11.5%) and 15.6 (95% CI, 15.1-16.2) cases per 1000 people, respectively. Within risk-adjusted analyses, reoperation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.28 [95% CI, 1.2-1.37]) and subsequent abdominal surgeries (aHR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.56-1.88]), as well as obesity (aHR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.69-2.10]), intestinal procedures (aHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.36-1.59]), and public insurance (aHRs: Medicare, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.20-1.57]; Medicaid, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.21-1.51]) were among the variables most strongly associated with IH. Every additional reoperation at the index admission and subsequently resulted in a 28% (95% CI, 20%-37%) and 71% (95% CI, 56%-88%) increased risk for IH, respectively. Repair of IH represented an additional $36.1 million in aggregate costs (39.9%) relative to all index TL admissions.

Conclusions and Relevance

Incisional hernia after TL mirrors the epidemiology and patient profile characteristics seen in the elective setting. We identified patient-level, perioperative, and novel postoperative factors associated with IH, with obesity, intestinal procedures, and repeated disruption of the abdominal wall among the factors most strongly associated with this outcome. These data support preemptive strategies at the time of reoperation to lessen IH incidence. Longer follow-up may be considered after TL for patients at high risk for IH.

Long-term follow-up of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after emergency laparotomy. A retrospective controlled study

BACKGROUND

Prevention of incisional hernias with a prophylactic mesh in emergency surgery is controversial. The present study aimed to analyze the long-term results of prophylactic mesh used for preventing incisional hernia after emergency midline laparotomies.

METHODS

This study was a registered (NCT04578561) retrospective analysis of patients who underwent an emergency midline laparotomy between January 2009 and July 2010 with a follow-up period of longer than 2 years. Long-term outcomes and risk factors for the development of incisional hernias between patients who received a prophylactic reinforcement mesh (Group M) and suture (Group S) were compared.

RESULTS

From an initial 266 emergency midline laparotomies, 187 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 64.4 months (SD 35). Both groups had similar characteristics, except for a higher rate of previous operations (62 vs. 43.2%; P = 0.01) and operation due to a revision laparotomy (32.5 vs.13%; P = 0.02) in the M group. During follow-up, 29.9% of patients developed an incisional hernia (Group S 36.6% vs. Group M 14.3%; P = 0.002). Chronic mesh infections were diagnosed in 2 patients, but no mesh explants were needed, and no patient in the M group developed chronic pain. Long-term risk factors for incisional hernia were as follows: smoking (HR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.318-4.624; P = 0.05), contaminated surgery (HR = 2.98; 95% CI 1.142-7.8; P = 0.02), surgical site infection (SSI; HR = 3.83; 95% CI 1.86-7.86; P = 0.001), and no use of prophylactic mesh (HR = 5.09; 95% CI 2.1-12.2; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Incidence of incisional hernias after emergency midline laparotomies is high and increases with time. High-risk patients, contaminated surgery, and surgical site infection (SSI) benefit from mesh reinforcement. Prophylactic mesh use is safe and feasible in emergencies with a low long-term complication rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04578561. www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Postoperative Abdominal Bulge and Hernia Rates in Patients Undergoing Abdominally Based Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT

Bulge and hernia may occur after abdominally based breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to provide an estimate of the effects that the type of flap used for breast reconstruction (ie, transverse rectus abdominis muscle [TRAM] vs muscle-sparing [MS]-2 TRAM vs DIEP) has on the postoperative development of both abdominal bulge and abdominal hernia, taking into consideration the method of donor site closure (ie, with mesh vs without mesh), based on the available literature. Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. From these, 9 studies were comparative and suitable for meta-analysis. The results showed that, for unilateral breast reconstructions, there was no statistically significant difference in hernia/bulge rates in the following techniques: MS-2 TRAM flap without mesh, MS-2 TRAM flap with mesh, and DIEP flap without mesh, and they showed significantly lower hernia/bulge rates compared with TRAM flap without mesh, and TRAM flap with mesh, whereas for bilateral reconstructions, there was no statistically significant difference in hernia/bulge rates in the following techniques: MS-2 TRAM flaps with mesh and DIEP flaps without mesh, and they showed significantly lower hernia/bulge rates compared with TRAM flaps without mesh, TRAM flaps with mesh, and MS-2 TRAM flaps without mesh.

Ventral Hernia Management in Obese Patients

Ventral and incisional hernias in obese patients are particularly challenging. Suboptimal outcomes are reported for elective repair in this population. Preoperative weight loss is ideal but is not achievable in all patients for a variety of reasons, including access to bariatric surgery, poor quality of life, and risk of incarceration. Surgeons must carefully weigh the risk of complications from ventral hernia repair with patient symptoms, the ability to achieve adequate weight loss, and the risks of emergency hernia repair in obese patients.

Umbilical incisional hernia (M3) Are trocar hernia differents? Comparative analysis of the EVEREG Registry

INTRODUCTION

Incisional hernia (HI), in open and laparoscopic surgery, is a very frequent complication. HI located in the umbilical region are called M3. The main aim of this study is to compare HI produced by the placement of an umbilical laparoscopic trocar (M3T) with those located in M3 in open surgery (M3O) in terms of basal characteristics, complications and recurrences; and secondarily the identification of risk factors.

METHOD

Cross-sectional observational study based on the national prospective registry EVEREG during the period of July 2012 - June 2018. The main variables were recurrences and postoperative complications. Both groups (M3T and M3O) were compared. Multiple logistic regression was performed to identify the risk factors of the entire cohort.

RESULTS

882 had a follow-up time longer than 12 months. M3O group presented superior ASA-Class, more complex HI and previous repair. It also presented a higher recurrence rate at 12 and 24 months (8.6 vs. 2.5%; p < 0,0001 and 9.3 vs. 2.9%; p < 0.0001) and higher postoperative complications rate (21.9 vs. 14.6%; p = 0.02). Previous repair, intervention length and associated procedures requirement were identified as risk factors for postoperative complications. Absence of a specialist present during surgery, previous repair, and the absence of complications were identified as risk factors for recurrence. In the PSM analysis no differences were detected in of complications and recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

HI M3O is more complex than M3T. The complexity is not related to the origin of the hernia but to its characteristics and those of the patient.

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.