Short-term results of a randomized controlled trial comparing primary suture with primary glued mesh augmentation to prevent incisional hernia

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).

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

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

Prophylactic 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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Prophylactic Onlay Mesh Repair (POMR) Versus Primary Suture Repair (PSR) for Prevention of Incisional Hernia (IH) After Abdominal Wall Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With many different operative techniques in use to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias (IH) following a midline laparotomy, there is no consensus among the clinicians on the efficacy and safety of any particular repair technique. This meta-analysis compares the prophylactic onlay mesh repair (POMR) and primary suture repair (PSR) for the incidence of IH.

METHODS

A meta-analysis and systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed Central (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, SCI and Cochrane Library databases were undertaken. Seven randomized controlled trials assessing the outcomes of PSR and POMR were analyzed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The risk of bias was assessed using the Rob2 tool.

RESULTS

According to the pooled analysis, POMR significantly reduced the incidence of IH compared to the PSR (OR 5.82 [95% CI 2.69, 12.58] P < 0.01) with a significantly higher seroma formation rate post-surgery (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.18, 0.67] P < 0.01). Furthermore, the length of hospital stay (WMD -0.78 [95% CI -1.58, 0.02] P = 0.05) was significantly shorter for PSR compared to POMR group. Comparable effects were noted for reintervention, postoperative ileus, postoperative hematoma, postoperative mortality, long-term intervention and long-term deaths between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

POMR significantly reduces the risk of IH when compared to the PSR, with an increased risk of postoperative seroma formation and longer hospital stay. However, more RCTs with standardized protocols are needed for meaningful comparisons of the two interventions, along with longer duration of follow-up to assess the impact on the occurrence of IH.

Effects of the short-stitch technique for midline abdominal closure: short-term results from the randomised-controlled ESTOIH trial

Purpose

The short-stitch technique for midline laparotomy closure has been shown to reduce hernia rates, but long stitches remain the standard of care and the effect of the short-stitch technique on short-term results is not well known. The aim of this study was to compare the two techniques, using an ultra-long-term absorbable elastic suture material.

Methods

Following elective midline laparotomy, 425 patients in 9 centres were randomised to receive wound closure using the short-stitch (USP 2-0 single thread, n = 215) or long-stitch (USP 1 double loop, n = 210) technique with a poly-4-hydroxybutyrate-based suture material (Monomax^®). Here, we report short-term surgical outcomes.

Results

At 30 (+10) days postoperatively, 3 (1.40%) of 215 patients in the short-stitch group and 10 (4.76%) of 210 patients in the long-stitch group had developed burst abdomen [OR 0.2830 (0.0768–1.0433), p = 0.0513]. Ruptured suture, seroma and hematoma and other wound healing disorders occurred in small numbers without differences between groups. In a planned Cox proportional hazard model for burst abdomen, the short-stitch group had a significantly lower risk [HR 0.1783 (0.0379–0.6617), p = 0.0115].

Conclusions

Although this trial revealed no significant difference in short-term results between the short-stitch and long-stitch techniques for closure of midline laparotomy, a trend towards a lower rate of burst abdomen in the short-stitch group suggests a possible advantage of the short-stitch technique.

Trial registry

NCT01965249, registered October 18, 2013.

The incisional hernia epidemic: evaluation of outcomes, recurrence, and expenses using the healthcare cost and utilization project (HCUP) datasets

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernias (IH) following abdominal surgery persist as morbid, costly, and multi-disciplinary surgical challenges. Using longitudinal, multi-state, administrative claims data (HCUP State Inpatient Databases (SID)); (HCUP State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases (SASD)), we aimed to characterize the epidemiology, outcomes, recurrence, and costs of IH.

STUDY DESIGN

529,108 patients undergoing abdominal surgery in 2010 across six specialties (colorectal, general/bariatric, hepatobiliary, obstetrics/gynecology, urology, and vascular) were identified within inpatient and ambulatory databases for Florida (FL), Iowa (IA), Nebraska (NE), New York (NY), and Utah (UT). IH repairs, complications, and expenditures were assessed through 2014. Predictive regression modeling was validated using a training set of 1000 bootstrapped repetitions.

RESULTS

16,169 (3.1%) patients developed hernias requiring repair (4.3-year mean follow-up), 3176 (20%) underwent recurrent repair, and 731 (23%) underwent re-recurrent repair. Patients with IH had increased readmissions (6.6 vs. 2.4), morbidity (39 vs. 8% surgical and 22 vs. 7% medical), and costs ($46,000 vs. $25,000) when compared to patients without IH (p < 0.001). IH expenditures totaled $875 million: initial ($687 million), recurrent ($155 million), and re-recurrent hernias ($33 million). IH predominated in colorectal (10%), hepatobiliary (8%), and vascular (5%) procedures. Of 31 significant independent IH risk factors (p < 0.001), obesity, age, smoking, open surgery, and prior surgery were pervasive across surgical specialties.

CONCLUSION

IH represents an unremitting surgical epidemic associated with considerable morbidity, costs, and features consistent with a chronic disease state. We define critical pervasive risk factors (obesity, age, smoking open surgery, and prior surgery) independently associated with IH across surgical disciplines. With failed repairs, subsequent success becomes less likely, increasing morbidity and costs-underscoring the critical importance of optimal treatment and prevention.

Infectious Complication in Relation to the Prophylactic Mesh Position: The PRIMA Trial Revisited

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement has proven to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia (IH). Fear of infectious complications may withhold the widespread implementation of prophylactic mesh reinforcement, particularly in the onlay position.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients scheduled for elective midline surgery were randomly assigned to a suture closure group, onlay mesh group, or sublay mesh group. The incidence, treatment, and outcomes of patients with infectious complications were assessed through examining the adverse event forms. Data were collected prospectively for 2 years after the index procedure.

RESULTS

Overall, infectious complications occurred in 14/107 (13.3%) patients in the suture group and in 52/373 (13.9%) patients with prophylactic mesh reinforcement (p = 0.821). Infectious complications occurred in 17.6% of the onlay group and 10.3% of the sublay group (p = 0.042). Excluding anastomotic leakage as a cause, these incidences were 16% (onlay) and 9.7% (sublay), p = 0.073. The mesh could remain in-situ in 40/52 (77%) patients with an infectious complication. The 2-year IH incidence after onlay mesh reinforcement was 10 in 33 (30.3%) with infectious complications and 15 in 140 (9.7%) without infectious complications (p = 0.003). This difference was not statistically significant for the sublay group.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh placement was not associated with increased incidence, severity, or need for invasive treatment of infectious complications compared with suture closure. Patients with onlay mesh reinforcement and an infectious complication had a significantly higher risk of developing an incisional hernia, compared with those in the sublay group.

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.

Dual Tack Mesh Fixation System on a Cadaveric Porcine Model-Creation of a Mesh Fixation System for Hernia Treatment and Prevention

BACKGROUND

Onlay mesh repair (OMR) has proven to be a widely used, simple, and effective technique for treatment and prevention of hernia occurrence. Despite established benefits, there is still a lack of widespread adoption. In this study, we present the Dual Tacker Device (DTD), an enabling technology that directly addresses the limitations to the adoption of OMR, saving surgical time and effort and making OMR more reproducible across a wide range of patients.

METHODS

The DTD mesh fixation system is a semiautomated, hand-held, disposable, multipoint onlay mechanical mesh fixation system that is able to rapidly and uniformly tension and fixate mesh for both hernia treatment and prevention. A cadaveric porcine model was used as a pilot test conducted during a 2 day session to assess the usability of the device and to show that the DTD provided equivalent or superior biomechanical support compared with the standard of care (hand-sewn, OptiFix).

RESULTS

Our study included 37 cadaveric porcine incisional closure abdominal wall models. These were divided into four groups: DTD-mediated OMR (n = 14), hand-sewn OMR (n = 7), OptiFix OMR (n = 9), and suture-only repair (no mesh) (n = 7). Eight surgical residents performed device-mediated and hand-sewn OMR. Average time to completion was fastest in the DTD cohort (45.6s) with a statistically significant difference compared with the hand-sewn cohort (343.1s, P < 0.01). No difference in tensile strength was noted between DTD (195.32N), hand-sewn (200.48N), and OptiFix (163.23N). Discreet hand movements were smallest in the DTD (29N) and significant (P < 0.01) when compared with hand-sewn (202N) and OptiFix (35N).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the DTD is not only feasible, but demonstrated improvement in time to completion and economy of movement over current standard of care. While more testing is needed and planned, compared with conventional approaches, the DTD represents a robust proof of principle with promising implications for clinical feasibility and adoptability.

Is there a role for prophylactic mesh in abdominal wall closure after emergency laparotomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernias are a common complication of emergency laparotomy and are associated with significant morbidity. Recent studies have found a reduction in incisional hernias when mesh is placed prophylactically during abdominal closure in elective laparotomies. This systematic review will assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement in emergency laparotomy.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42018109283). Papers were dual screened for eligibility, and included when a comparison was made between closure with prophylactic mesh and closure with a standard technique, reported using a comparative design (i.e. case-control, cohort or randomised trial), where the primary outcome was incisional hernia. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in non-randomised studies tool. A meta-analysis of incisional hernia rate was performed to estimate risk ratio using a random effects model (Mantel-Haenszel approach).

RESULTS

332 studies were screened for eligibility, 29 full texts were reviewed and 2 non-randomised studies were included. Both studies were biased due to confounding factors, as closure technique was based on patient risk factors for incisional hernia. Both studies found significantly fewer incisional hernias in the mesh groups [3.2% vs 28.6% (p < 0.001) and 5.9% vs 33.3% (p = 0.0001)]. A meta-analysis of incisional hernia risk favoured prophylactic mesh closure [risk ratio 0.15 (95% CI 0.6-0.35, p < 0.001)]. Neither study found an association between mesh and infection or enterocutaneous fistula.

CONCLUSION

This review found that there are limited data to assess the effect or safety profile of prophylactic mesh in the emergency laparotomy setting. The current data cannot reliably assess the use of mesh due to confounding factors, and a randomised controlled trial is required to address this important clinical question.

Incisional hernia after liver transplantation: Risk factors, management strategies and long-term outcomes of a cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Incisional hernias (IH) develop in up to 40% of liver transplant (LT) recipients and can contribute to considerable morbidity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single center retrospective review of a prospectively maintained LT database was conducted to identify all patients diagnosed with IH after LT during a 13-year study period (2003-2015). Analyzed data included patient demographics, LT details, incidence and timing of IH, risk factors, management strategies and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

During the 13-year study period, IH was diagnosed in 16.7% (163/976) of LT recipients after a median of 19.6 months (range 6.7-49.5 months) from transplant surgery. Identified risk factors for developing IH included male gender (p < 0.001) while acute cellular rejection (ACR) was found to be negatively associated with the risk of developing IH (p = 0.014). Acute incarceration/strangulation was seen in 4 patients with IH while the remaining (n = 159) presented with non-emergent symptoms. Surgical repair was undertaken in 70/163 (43%) IH patients after medical optimization when possible (open repair 83%, mesh use 90%). IH recurrence rate was 14.3% (10/70) with comparable rates in no-mesh and with-mesh repairs (42.9% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.057) and open (15.8%) and laparoscopic (9.1%) approaches (p = 0.68).

CONCLUSION

IH is a late complication following LT and male gender is a consistent predictive marker. Acute presentation is infrequent and elective repair can be planned in most patients allowing for risk factor optimization to ensure promising long-term outcomes.

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]

Hernia reduction following laparotomy using small stitch abdominal wall closure with and without mesh augmentation (the HULC trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Incisional hernias are among the most frequent complications following abdominal surgery and cause substantial morbidity, impaired health-related quality of life and costs. Despite improvements in abdominal wall closure techniques, the risk for developing an incisional hernia is reported to be between 10 and 30% following midline laparotomies. There have been two recent innovations with promising results to reduce hernia risks, namely the small stitches technique and the placement of a prophylactic mesh. So far, these two techniques have not been evaluated in combination.

Methods

The HULC trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled, observer- and patient-blinded surgical effectiveness trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 812 patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery via a midline laparotomy will be randomized in 12 centres after informed consent. Patients will be randomly assigned to the control group receiving closure of the midline incision with a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in the small stitches technique or to the intervention group, who will receive a small stitches closure followed by augmentation with a light-weight polypropylene mesh in the onlay technique. The primary endpoint will be the occurrence of incisional hernias, as defined by the European Hernia Society, within 24 months after surgery. Further perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes.

Discussion

The HULC trial will address the yet unanswered question of whether a combination of small stitched fascial closure and onlay mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomies reduces the risk of incisional hernias. The HULC trial marks the logical and innovative next step in the development of a safe abdominal closure technique.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00017517. Registered on 24th June 2019.

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).

Does perfusion matter? Preoperative prediction of incisional hernia development

PURPOSE

Incisional hernias complicate 12-15% of general surgery cases with higher rates reported after laparotomy for aortoiliac occlusive disease (10-17%) and aneurysmal disease (17-38%). We hypothesize that inadequate perfusion of the abdominal wall promotes future hernia development.

METHODS

Thirty-eight patients undergoing midline laparotomy or thoracoabdominal approach for aortic disease with at least 2 years of follow-up were included in the study. Preoperative imaging was reviewed to assess vessel patency, contributing to the abdominal wall perfusion. Patency of the superior epigastric artery was determined at the T10 level, the inferior epigastric artery at the L4 level, and the deep circumflex iliac artery at the anterior superior iliac spine. Lumbar arteries were considered patent if they were seen branching from the aorta. Clinic notes and hospital medical records were reviewed to evaluate the hernia development post-procedure.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients (34%) developed an incisional hernia. Absent flow from bilateral superior epigastric arteries or absent flow from ipsilateral superior and inferior epigastric arteries was found to be predictive of hernia development (P = 0.013, 0.011, respectively). There was no association identified with perfusion from the lumbar or deep circumflex iliac arteries.

CONCLUSIONS

Absent patency of the abdominal wall vasculature is a novel risk factor for incisional hernia development in the setting of aortic disease. Preoperative assessment of perfusion may convey the risk of hernia development and may be a tool to guide measures such as prophylactic mesh placement to reduce the future risk of incisional hernia.

Prophylactic onlay reinforcement with absorbable mesh (polyglactin) is associated with less early wound complications after kidney transplantation: A preliminary study

Incidence of wound complications after kidney transplantation (KTx) is still considerable. Here, we report the impact of prophylactic absorbable polyglactin (Vicryl®) mesh reinforcement on the incidence of short-term post-KTx wound complications. Sixty-nine patients were analyzed; 23 with and 46 without preventive onlay mesh reinforcement. Surgical site infections (SSI) were seen in six (26%) patients in the mesh group and in 17 (37%) patients in no-mesh group. A lower, but not statistically significant, rate of early postoperative wound complications occurred in the mesh group. Wound complications were observed in seven (30%) patients in the mesh group and in 23 (50%) patients in the no-mesh group. There was no association between mesh placement and SSI incidence (odds ratios [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-1.82, p = 0.369) and wound complications (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.15-1.26, p = 0.126). Therefore, we conclude that mesh reinforcement does not increase the risk of SSI and overall wound complications. Long-term outcomes have to be evaluated in a randomized trial setting. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 108B:67-72, 2020.

Theoretic and Evidence-Based Laparotomy Closure with Sutures and Meshes

The ultimate tensile strength of newly apposed tissue is the sum of the strength of the physical construct holding the tissues and the strength of biologic healing. For successful incisional hernia repair, the total strength of the repair must remain greater than the forces applied. While much work has been done to understand the science of wound healing-the ability of an open defect to contract and close-far less has been done to understand the healing of 2 newly approximated previously nonwounded surfaces held together with sutures or other implants. In this article, the elements of ultimate tensile strength on laparotomy closure as well as their progression over time will be related to clinical studies of abdominal wall closure.

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION

Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations.

METHODS

A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used.

RESULTS

The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.

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.

Incisional Hernia in the United States: Trends in Hospital Encounters and Corresponding Healthcare Charges

Incisional hernia (IH) is a challenging, potentially morbid condition. This study evaluates recent trends in hospital encounters associated with IH care in the United States. Using Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases from 2007 to 2011, annual estimates of IH-related hospital discharges, charges, and serious adverse events were identified. Significance in observed trends was tested using regression modeling. From 2007 to 2011, there were 583,054 hospital discharges associated with a diagnosis of IH. 81.1 per cent had a concurrent procedure for IH repair. The average discharge included a female patient (63.2%), 59.8 years of age, with either Medicare (45.3%) or Private insurance (38.3%) as the anticipated primary payer. Comparing 2007 to 2011, significant increases in IH discharges (12%; 2007 = 109,702 vs 2011 = 123,034, P = 0.009) and IH repairs (10%; 2007 = 90,588 vs 2011 = 99,622, P < 0.001) were observed. This was accompanied by a 37 per cent increase in hospital charges (2007 = $44,587 vs 2011 = $60,968, P < 0.001), resulting in a total healthcare bill of $7.3 billion in 2011. Significant trends toward greater patient age (2007 = 59.7 years vs 2011 = 60.2 years, P < 0.001), higher comorbidity index (2007 = 3.0 vs 2011 = 3.5, P < 0.001), and increased frequency of serious adverse events (2007 = 13.5% vs 2011 = 17.7%, P < 0.001) were noted. Further work is needed to identify interventions to mitigate the risk of IH development.

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.

Incisional hernia prevention using a cyanoacrilate-fixed retrofascial mesh

INTRODUCTION

The rate of incisional hernia in high-risk patients (obesity, cancer, etc.) is high, even in laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of the use of cyanoacrylate fixed prophylactic meshes in the assistance incision in overweight or obese patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A prospective, non-randomized cohort study of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer between January 2013 and March 2016 was performed. Those with a body mass index greater than 25kg / m² were evaluated to implant a prophylactic meshes fixed with cyanoacrylate (Histoacryl®) as reinforcement of the assistance incision.

RESULTS

52 patients were analyzed (mean body mass index: 28.4±2kg / m ²). Prophylactic meshes was implanted in 15 patients. The time to put the mesh in place was always less than 5minutes. There was no significant difference in wound infection rate (12% vs. 10%). No mesh had to be explanted. Although the mean follow-up was shorter (14.1±4 vs. 22.3±9 months), there were no incisional hernia in the mesh group. On the other hand, in the non-mesh group, 1 acute evisceration (2.7%) and 4 incisional hernia of the assistance incision were observed (10.8%). There were no significant differences between groups regarding trocar incisional hernia (6.6 vs. 5.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation of a reinforcement prophylactic mesh in overweight or obese patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery is safe and seems to reduce the short-term rate of incisional hernia. Fixation with cyanoacrylate is a rapid method that facilitates the procedure without additional complications.

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.

Advanced glycation end products as a biomarker for incisional hernia

Background

Incisional hernia is one of the most frequent complications after abdominal surgery, with incidences up to 30%. A reliable biomarker for the prediction of this complication is lacking. Advanced glycosylation end products (AGEs), also known as non-enzymatic collagen crosslinks, are correlated with aging, smoking, hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia and oxidative stress. In this study the accumulation of AGEs and the relation between AGEs and incisional hernia were investigated.

Materials and methods

In an exploratory case–control study, 23 patients with incisional hernia after midline incision were compared with 17 patients without clinical or radiological signs of incisional hernia after midline incision, AGEs were measured using a Skin Auto Fluorescence (SAF)-reader.

Results

Twenty-three patients with a clinically significant incisional hernia and 17 control patients were included. The study groups had significant differences in mean BMI. There was a significant difference between mean AGEs in patients with and without incisional hernia after midline incision (3.00 ± 0.15 vs. 2.56 ± 0.11, T test p = 0.03).

Conclusion

AGE accumulation measured in the skin indirectly with autofluorescence might be associated with incisional hernia. Prospective larger trials should confirm this finding.

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.

A Risk Model and Cost Analysis of Incisional Hernia After Elective, Abdominal Surgery Based Upon 12,373 Cases: The Case for Targeted Prophylactic Intervention

Objectives:

Incisional hernia (IH) remains a common, highly morbid, and costly complication. Modest progress has been realized in surgical technique and mesh technology; however, few advances have been achieved toward understanding risk and prevention. In light of the increasing emphasis on prevention in today's health care environment and the billions in costs for surgically treated IH, greater focus on predictive risk models is needed.

Methods:

All patients undergoing gastrointestinal or gynecologic procedures from January 1, 2005 to June 1, 2013, within the University of Pennsylvania Health System were identified. Comorbidities and operative characteristics were assessed. The primary outcome was surgically treated IH after index procedures. Patients with prior hernia, less than 1-year follow-up, or emergency surgical procedures were excluded. Cox hazard regression modeling with bootstrapped validation, risk factor stratification, and assessment of model performance were conducted.

Results:

A total of 12,373 patients with a 3.5% incidence of surgically treated IH (follow-up 32.2 ± 26.6 months) were identified. The cost of surgical treatment of IH and management of associated complications exceeded $17.5 million. Notable independent risk factors for IH were ostomy reversal (HR = 2.76), recent chemotherapy (HR = 2.04), bariatric surgery (HR = 1.78), smoking history (HR = 1.74), liver disease (HR = 1.60), and obesity (HR = 1.96). High-risk patients (20.6%) developed IH compared with 0.5% of low-risk patients (C-statistic = 0.78).

Conclusions:

This study demonstrates an internally validated preoperative risk model of surgically treated IH after 12,000 elective, intra-abdominal procedures to provide more individualized risk counseling and to better inform evidence-based algorithms for the role of prophylactic mesh.

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.

Incisional hernia after open resections for colorectal liver metastases - incidence and risk factors

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is one of the most common complications after laparotomy. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate incidence, location and risk factors for incisional hernia after open resection for colorectal liver metastases including the use of perioperative chemotherapy and targeted therapy evaluated by computed tomography.

METHODS

Patients operated for colorectal liver metastases between 2010 and 2013 were included. Incisional hernia was defined as a discontinuity in the abdominal fascia observed on computed tomography.

RESULTS

A total of 256 patients were analyzed in regard to incisional hernia. Seventy-eight patients (30.5%) developed incisional hernia. Hernia locations were midline alone in 66 patients (84.6%) and involving the midline in another 8 patients (10.3%). In multivariate analysis, preoperative chemotherapy >6 cycles (hazard ratio 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.14-3.94), preoperative bevacizumab (hazard ratio 3.63, 95% confidence interval 1.86-7.08) and incisional hernia from previous surgery (hazard ratio 3.50, 95% confidence interval 1.98-6.18) were found to be independent risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged preoperative chemotherapy and also preoperative bevacizumab were strong predictors for developing an incisional hernia. After an extended right subcostal incision, the hernia location was almost exclusively in the midline.

The economic burden of incisional ventral hernia repair: a multicentric cost analysis

PURPOSE

A systematic review of literature led us to take note that little was known about the costs of incisional ventral hernia repair (IVHR).

METHODS

Therefore we wanted to assess the actual costs of IVHR. The total costs are the sum of direct (hospital costs) and indirect (sick leave) costs. The direct costs were retrieved from a multi-centric cost analysis done among a large panel of 51 French public hospitals, involving 3239 IVHR. One hundred and thirty-two unitary expenditure items were thoroughly evaluated by the accountants of a specialized public agency (ATIH) dedicated to investigate the costs of the French Health Care system. The indirect costs (costs of the post-operative inability to work and loss of profit due to the disruption in the ongoing work) were estimated from the data the Hernia Club registry, involving 790 patients, and over a large panel of different Collective Agreements.

RESULTS

The mean total cost for an IVHR in France in 2011 was estimated to be 6451€, ranging from 4731€ for unemployed patients to 10,107€ for employed patients whose indirect costs (5376€) were slightly higher than the direct costs.

CONCLUSION

Reducing the incidence of incisional hernia after abdominal surgery with 5 % for instance by implementation of the European Hernia Society Guidelines on closure of abdominal wall incisions, or maybe even by use of prophylactic mesh augmentation in high risk patients could result in a national cost savings of 4 million Euros.