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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement Versus Primary Suture for Abdominal Wall Closure after Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Midline Laparotomy Incision: Updated Systematic Review Including Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair have a high risk of incisional hernia. Heterogeneity in recommendations regarding prophylactic mesh reinforcement between scientific society guidelines reflects the lack of sufficient data, with the Society for Vascular Surgery making no recommendation on methods for abdominal wall closure. We aimed to synthesize the most current evidence on mesh versus primary suture abdominal wall closure after open AAA repair.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mesh reinforcement with primary abdominal wall closure for patients who underwent elective AAA repair with a midline laparotomy incision. Dichotomous and time-to-event data were pooled using random effects models, applying the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method. The revised Cochrane tool and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence, respectively. Trial sequential analysis assumed alpha = 5% and power = 80%.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included reporting a total of 487 patients (260 in the mesh group and 227 in the primary suture group). Patients who had mesh closure had statistically significantly lower odds of developing incisional hernia after open AAA repair than those with primary suture closure (odds ratio (OR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.43). Time-to-event analysis confirmed that the hazard of incisional hernia was statistically significantly lower in patients who had mesh closure (P < 0.05). Meta-analysis found statistically significantly lower odds of reoperation for incisional hernia in the mesh group (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06-0.93), but there was no statistically significant difference in wound infection (risk difference 0.02, 95% CI -0.03-0.08). The overall risk of bias was low in one study, high in 2 studies, "some concerns" in 2 studies for incisional hernia and reoperation for incisional hernia, and high in all studies reporting wound infection. The certainty of evidence was judged to be low for all outcomes. Trial sequential analysis confirmed a benefit of mesh reinforcement in reducing the risk of incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of the highest-level data demonstrated a benefit of prophylactic mesh reinforcement, with trial sequential analysis confirming no additional RCTs required. This provides compelling evidence to support the use of mesh for midline laparotomy closure in patients undergoing open AAA repair.

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.

Early Experience with Mesh Suture for DIEP Flap Abdominal Site Closures

Background

The gold standard of microsurgical breast reconstruction is the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap. As techniques have evolved, DIEP flaps have significantly reduced the morbidity previously caused by transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) and muscle-sparing TRAM flaps. However, abdominal wall complications continue to persist after DIEP flap surgery, with bulge rates reported as high as 33%.

Methods

The first 25 patients undergoing DIEP flap surgery with the use of Duramesh (MSI, Chicago, Ill.) by the senior author were identified. A retrospective chart review of patient and surgical details was performed. Charts were reviewed for outcomes, including surgical site infections, surgical site events, incisional hernia formation, and/or bulge. Standard descriptive summary statistics were used for patient characteristics, surgical details, and primary and secondary outcomes.

Results

Twenty-five patients were reviewed. Average follow-up duration was 216 ± 39 days. One patient (4%) developed a surgical site infection, and four patients (16%) developed a surgical site event. One patient developed a bulge, but no patients developed an incisional hernia.

Conclusions

Duramesh mesh suture provides a promising opportunity for DIEP surgeons to minimize both abdominal wall morbidity and mesh-related complications. Mesh suture can be used in a similar fashion as other sutures to perform primary closure of the anterior rectus sheath while also providing force-distribution benefits typically unique to planar mesh. This pilot study suggests that Duramesh is a safe, simple alternative to existing techniques in DIEP flap surgery and can be considered by microsurgeons to reduce fascial dehiscence, bulge, and/or hernia formation.

Prophylactic slowly resorbable mesh in midline laparotomy to limit incisional hernia incidence: the prospective 'Mesh Augmented Reinforcement of Abdominal Wall Suture Line (MARS)' cohort study protocol

Background

Incisional hernia (IH) after abdominal surgery is a frequent surgical complication. Risk factors associated with IH are midline incisions, patients with an abdominal aneurysm of the aorta, and high BMI. Preventive measures include the use of the small-bites suture technique and/or placing a prophylactic mesh for reinforcement of the midline closure. Although recommended for high-risk patients, many surgeons are still reluctant to place a prophylactic mesh due to related complications. To counter these concerns, new synthetic resorbable meshes are being developed, such as the Deternia Self-Gripping Resorbable Mesh ("investigational device"). However, the effectiveness of this mesh in IH prevention has not been proved.

Methods

The Mesh Augmented Reinforcement of Abdominal Wall Suture Line (MARS) study is a European, multicentre, prospective, single-arm study. A total of 120 patients scheduled for elective midline laparotomy, and for that reason at risk of developing IH, will be recruited in ~12 sites after informed consent. The sample size was estimated based on greater than 80% power, two-sided alpha of 0.05, an expected 12 month IH rate of 8% and a predefined performance goal of 18% (10% clinical margin). Midline incisions will be closed by the small bites closure technique with a minimum 4:1 suture-to-wound length ratio and reinforced by mesh placement in the retrorectus position. The primary outcome will be IH occurrence at 12-month postoperatively, evaluated both clinically and by ultrasound. Secondary outcomes will include mesh-related and postoperative complications, surgical characteristics, IH incidence at 2 and 3 years after surgery, and quality of life.

Discussion

Currently, no conclusive evidence is available for synthetic resorbable meshes in a prophylactic setting to prevent IH. The MARS study will be the first prospective cohort study to investigate resorbable synthetic meshes and small bites closure to reduce IH incidence.

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.

Duramesh registry study: short-term outcomes using mesh suture for abdominal wall closure

Introduction

Sutures are flexible linear elements that join tissue and maintain their hold with a surgeon-created knot. Tension at the suture/tissue interface can cut the very tissues that sutures are designed to hold, leading to dehiscence and incisional hernia formation. A new suture design (Duramesh, Mesh Suture Inc., Chicago, IL) was approved for marketing by the United States Food and Drug Administration in September 2022. The multiple filaments of the mesh suture are designed to diffuse tension at the suture/tissue interface thereby limiting pull-through. The macroporosity and hollow core of the mesh suture encourage fibrovascular incorporation for a durable repair. We created the first registry and clinical report of patients undergoing mesh suture implantation to assess its real-world effectiveness.

Methods

A patient registry was created based on institutional implant logs from January to August 2023 at an integrated health-care system. Operative reports were reviewed by the study team to verify use of "Duramesh" by dictation. Retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate patient and surgical characteristics, follow-up, and short-term outcomes of interest. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-squared analysis with Microsoft Excel and GraphPad Prism.

Results

Three hundred seventy-nine separate implantations by 56 surgeons across 12 (sub) specialties at a university hospital and two community hospitals were performed. Mesh suture was used for treatment of the abdominal wall in 314 cases. Follow-up averaged 80.8 ± 52.4 days. The most common abdominal wall indications were ventral hernia repair (N = 97), fascial closure (N = 93), abdominal donor site closure from autologous breast reconstruction (N = 51), and umbilical hernia repair (N = 41). Mesh suture was used in all Centers for Disease Control (CDC) wound classifications, including 92 CDC class 2 or 3 abdominal operations. There were 19 surgical site infections (6.1%) and 37 surgical site events (11.8%).

Conclusions

Short-term registry data demonstrates the wide diversity of surgical disciplines and scenarios in which mesh suture has been used to date. The early adoption of mesh suture into practice highlights that consequences of suture pull-through influence operative decision making. As this is the first interim report of the Duramesh mesh suture registry, follow-up is too short for characterization of long-term durability of abdominal wall closures.

Incisional Hernia: A Surgical Complication or Medical Disease?

Incisional hernia (IH) is a frequent complication following abdominal surgery. The development of IH could be more sophisticated than a simple anatomical failure of the abdominal wall. Reported IH incidence varies among studies. This review presented an overview of definitions, molecular basis, risk factors, incidence, clinical presentation, surgical techniques, postoperative care, cost, risk prediction tools, and proposed preventative measures. A literature search of PubMed was conducted to include high-quality studies on IH. The incidence of IH depends on the primary surgical pathology, incision site and extent, associated medical comorbidities, and risk factors. The review highlighted inherent and modifiable risk factors. The disorganisation of the extracellular matrix, defective fibroblast functions, and ratio variations of different collagen types are implicated in molecular mechanisms. Elective repair of IH alleviates symptoms, prevents complications, and improves the quality of life (QOL). Recent studies introduced risk prediction tools to implement preventative measures, including suture line reinforcement or prophylactic mesh application in high-risk groups. Elective repair improves QOL and prevents sinister outcomes associated with emergency IH repair. The watchful wait strategy should be reviewed, and options should be discussed thoroughly during patients' counselling. Risk stratification tools for predicting IH would help adopt prophylactic measures.

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

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

Incisional Hernias after Vascular Surgery for Aortoiliac Aneurysm and Aortoiliac Occlusive Arterial Disease: Has Prophylactic Mesh Changed This Scenario?

BACKGROUND

 Incisional hernia (IH) is an important surgical complication that has several ways of prevention, including modifications in the surgical technique of the initial procedure. Its incidence can reach 69% in high-risk patients and long-term follow-up. Of the risky procedures, open abdominal aortic aneurysmectomy is the one with the highest risk. Ways to reduce this morbid complication were suggested, and prophylactic mesh rises as an important tool to prevent recurrence.

METHODS

 A retrospective cohort study review of medical records of patients undergoing vascular surgery for abdominal aortoiliac aneurysm (AAA) or vascular bypass surgery due to aortoiliac occlusive disease. We identified 193 patients treated between 2010 and 2020. We further performed a one-to-nine matching analysis between the use of prophylactic mesh and control groups, based on estimated propensity scores for each patient.

RESULTS

 Prophylactic mesh group had a 18% lower risk of IH, compared with the control group (relative risk: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74-0.93). The difference in IH rates between the groups compared was 2.6% (95% CI: -19.8 to 25.5). From the perspective of the number needed to treat, it would be necessary to use prophylactic mesh in 39 (95% CI: 35-44) patients to avoid one IH in this population.

CONCLUSION

 Use of prophylactic mesh in the repair of AAA significantly reduces the incidence of IH in nearly one in five cases. Our data suggest that there is benefit in the use of prophylactic mesh in open aneurysmectomy surgery regarding postoperative IH development.

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.

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.

Incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

INTRODUCTION

Incisional hernia (IH) is common after open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Recent studies reported incidence rates higher than previously stated. The aim of this study was to quantify the IH incidence after open AAA surgery. The secondary outcome was to identify the risk factors associated with the development of an IH.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study of all consecutive patients who underwent an open repair of AAA, from January 2010 to June 2018, at our institution. Patients were free of abdominal wall hernias at the moment of inclusion in the study. Data were extracted from electronic records: baseline characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative events. Computed tomography (CT) scans performed during follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were analysed. The IH incidence after open repair of AAA was 46.5% (73 patients). The median time for IH development was 24.43 months (IQR: 10.40-45.27), while the median follow-up time was 37.20 months (IQR: 20.53-64.12). The risk factors linked to IH were: active (HR: 4.535; 95% CI: 1.369-15.022) or previous smoking habit (HR: 4.652; 95% CI: 1.430-15.131), chronic kidney disease (HR: 2.007; 95% CI: 1.162-3.467) and previous abdominal surgery (HR: 1.653; 95% CI: 1.014-2.695).

CONCLUSION

The incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair affected a high proportion of the intervened patients. Previous abdominal surgery, chronic kidney disease, and smoking habit were independent factors for the development of an incisional hernia.

Prevention of Incisional Hernias by Prophylactic Mesh-augmented Reinforcement of Midline Laparotomies for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treatment: Five-year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of incisional hernias (IHs) after open repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is high. Several randomized controlled trials have reported favorable results with the use of prophylactic mesh to prevent IHs, without increasing complications. In this analysis, we report on the results of the 60-month follow-up of the PRIMAAT trial.

METHODS

In a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized design, patients were randomized between prophylactic retrorectus mesh reinforcement (mesh group), and primary closure of their midline laparotomy after open AAA repair (no-mesh group). This article reports on the results of clinical follow-up after 60 months. If performed, ultrasonography or computed tomography were used for the diagnosis of IHs.

RESULTS

Of the 120 randomized patients, 114 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Thirty-three patients in the no-mesh group (33/58-56.9%) and 34 patients in the mesh group (34/56-60.7%) were evaluated after 5 years. In each treatment arm, 10 patients died between the 24-month and 60-month follow-up. The cumulative incidence of IHs in the no-mesh group was 32.9% after 24 months and 49.2% after 60 months. No IHs were diagnosed in the mesh group. In the no-mesh group, 21.7% (5/23) underwent reoperation within 5 years due to an IH.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic retrorectus mesh reinforcement after midline laparotomy for the treatment of AAAs safely and effectively decreases the rate of IHs. The cumulative incidence of IHs after open AAA repair, when no mesh is used, continues to increase during the first 5 years after surgery, which leads to a substantial rate of hernia repairs.

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.

Assessment of Quality of Life after Endovascular and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

Postoperative quality of life is an important outcome parameter after treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to assess and compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients after open repair (OR) or endovascular treatment (EVAR), and furthermore to investigate the effect of incisional hernia (IH) formation on HRQoL. Patients who underwent OR or EVAR for treatment of an abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2008 and 2016 at a University Medical Center were included. HRQoL was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. The incidence of IH was recorded from patient files and by telephone contact. SF-36 scores of 83 patients (OR: n = 36; EVAR: n = 47) were obtained. The mean follow-up period was 7.1 years. When comparing HRQoL between OR and EVAR, patients in both groups scored higher in one of the eight categories of the SF36 questionnaires. The incidence of IH after OR was 30.6%. In patients with postoperative IH, HRQoL was significantly reduced in the dimensions “physical functioning”, “role physical” and “role emotional” of the SF-36. Based on this data, it can be concluded that neither OR nor EVAR supply a significant advantage regarding HRQoL. In contrast, the occurrence of IH has a relevant impact on the HRQoL of patients after OR.

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.

RISK FACTORS OF LONG-TERM INCISIONAL HERNIA AFTER OPEN SURGERY FOR ABDOMINAL AORTIC ANEURYSM: A BICENTRIC STUDY

INTRODUCTION

Conventional open surgery is still important beside endovascular surgery in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms, with less reinterventions in the long-term follow-up. Incisional hernias are the major complication open surgery in the mid- and long term. The occurrence of this late complication could be due to the choice of the incision, median or transverse. The objectives of our retrospective and bicentric study were to characterize the long-term risk factors for incisional hernias after open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms, in particular by comparing the two types of laparotomy, and to determine the prevalence of the operated and not operated incisional hernias.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2009 and December 2011, all the patients having elective open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) by midline laparotomy at the University hospital of Besancon or by transversal laparotomy at the University Hospital of Strasbourg were included retrospectively. The demographic data, the time of diagnosis of the incisional hernia and the parietal reinterventions were collected during a 5-year postoperative follow-up. A univariate and multivariate Cox model was used for the statistical analysis to determine the long-term risk factors for the appearance of an incisional hernia.

RESULTS

During the study period, 223 patients presenting with AAA were included, 112 of them were operated by a midline laparotomy and 111 by a transverse laparotomy. The mean age of the patients was 69 ± 8,4years and 208 (93.3%) were men. The 5-year prevalence of incisional hernias was 14.3% (32), and 20 of these hernias (9%) had to be operated. Eighteen hernias (16.1%) occurred after a midline laparotomy and 14 (12.6%) after a transverse incision (P = 0.30). In univariate analysis, obstructive chronic pulmonary disease was the only significant risk factor for incisional hernia (P = 0.01) and an age over 65 years appeared to protect against this risk (P = 0.049). These results were confirmed by multivariate analysis, which showed that obstructive chronic pulmonary disease was an independent risk factor for incisional hernia (HR = 2.35, 95% CI 1.16-4.75), and that an age over 65 years was a protective factor (HR = 0.49 95% IC 0.00-0.99).

CONCLUSION

The type of laparotomy did not modify the rate of incisional hernias. We showed that only 9% of the patients had to be operated to treat an incisional hernia during the first five years after surgery for AAA in our bicentric study. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was the only independent risk factor for the occurrence of an incisional hernia.

Incisional Surgical Site Infections After Mass and Layered Closure of Upper Abdominal Transverse Incisions: First Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the early results of mass and layered closure of upper abdominal transverse incisions.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Contrary to midline incisions, data on closure of transverse abdominal incisions are lacking.

METHODS

This is the first analysis of a randomized controlled trial primarily designed to compare mass with layered closure of transverse incisions with respect to incisional hernias. Patients undergoing laparotomy through upper abdominal transverse incisions were randomized to either mass or layered closure with continuous sutures. Incisional surgical site infection (incisional-SSI) was the primary end-point. Secondary end-points comprised suture-to-wound length ratio (SWLR), closure duration, and fascial dehiscence (clinicatrials.gov NCT03561727).

RESULTS

A total of 268 patients were randomized to either mass (n=134) or layered (n=134) closure. Incisional-SSIs occurred in 24 (17.9%) and 8 (6.0%) patients after mass and layered closure, respectively (P =0.004), with crude odds ratio (OR) of 0.29 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.13-0.67; P =0.004]. Layered technique was independently associated with fewer incisional-SSIs (OR: 0.29; 95% CI 0.12-0.69; P =0.005). The number needed to treat, absolute, and relative risk reduction for layered technique in reducing incisional-SSIs were 8.4 patients, 11.9%, and 66.5%, respectively. Dehiscence occurred in one (0.8%) patient after layered closure and in two (1.5%) patients after mass closure (P >0.999). Median SWLR were 8.1 and 5.6 (P <0.001) with median closure times of 27.5 and 25.0 minutes (P =0.044) for layered and mass closures, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Layered closure of upper abdominal transverse incisions should be preferred due to lower risk of incisional-SSIs and higher SWLR, despite clinically irrelevant longer duration.

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.

Abdominal wall complications after kidney transplantation: A clinical review

Introduction

Abdominal wall complications are common after kidney transplantation, and although they have a minor impact on patient and graft survival, they increase the patient's morbidity and may have an impact on quality of life. Abdominal wall complications have an overall incidence of 7.7–21%.

Methods

This review will explore the natural history of abdominal wall complications in the kidney transplant setting, with a special focus on wound dehiscence and incisional herni, with a particular emphasis on risk factors, clinical characteristics, and treatment.

Results

Many patient‐related risk factors have been suggested, including older age, obesity, and smoking, but kidney transplant recipients have an additional risk related to the use of immunosuppression. Wound dehiscence usually does not require surgical intervention. However, for deep dehiscence involving the fascial layer with concomitant infection, surgical treatment and/or negative pressure wound therapy may be required.

Conclusions

Incisional hernia (IH) may affect 1.1–18% of kidney transplant recipients. Most patients require surgical treatment, either open or laparoscopic. Mesh repair is considered the gold standard for the treatment of IH, since it is associated with a low rate of postoperative complications and an acceptable rate of recurrence. Biologic mesh could be an attractive alternative in patients with graft exposition or infection.

Incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

INTRODUCTION

Incisional hernia (IH) is common after open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Recent studies reported incidence rates higher than previously stated. The aim of this study was to quantify the IH incidence after open AAA surgery. The secondary outcome was to identify the risk factors associated with the development of an IH.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study of all consecutive patients who underwent an open repair of AAA, from January 2010 to June 2018, at our institution. Patients were free of abdominal wall hernias at the moment of inclusion in the study. Data were extracted from electronic records: baseline characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative events. Computed tomography (CT) scans performed during follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were analysed. The IH incidence after open repair of AAA was 46.5% (73 patients). The median time for IH development was 24.43 months (IQR: 10.40-45.27), while the median follow-up time was 37.20 months (IQR: 20.53-64.12). The risk factors linked to IH were: active (HR: 4.535; 95% CI: 1.369-15.022) or previous smoking habit (HR: 4.652; 95% CI: 1.430-15.131), chronic kidney disease (HR: 2.007; 95% CI: 1.162-3.467) and previous abdominal surgery (HR: 1.653; 95% CI: 1.014-2.695).

CONCLUSION

The incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair affected a high proportion of the intervened patients. Previous abdominal surgery, chronic kidney disease, and smoking habit were independent factors for the development of an incisional hernia.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A Dedicated Lightweight Titanized Mesh Prevents Incisional Hernias After Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Repair: Results of an Initial Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Incisional hernia (IH) is a common, late complication of open repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), with a variable high incidence. A cohort study was conducted to investigate the role of a lightweight titanized mesh placed in the pre-peritoneal space after AAA repair. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence of IH at eight weeks and 12 months.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent open repair of AAA with the prophylactic implantation of a mesh after abdominal wall closure were recruited. The development of IH was evaluated using clinical examination, ultrasonography scan (USS), and computed tomography (CT) scan during the follow-up period.

Results

Thirty-nine of 45 patients (34 male, 5 female, mean age 69.6 +/- 6.5 years) undergoing open repair of AAA over a five-year period via a preferred roof-top incision were analyzed for this study. One additional (2.5%) patient had the mesh explanted following a re-laparotomy for colonic ischemia and later developed an incisional hernia. There was no incidence of wound or mesh infection overall. One radiologically detected early IH closed spontaneously. There were five (12.8%) radiologically detected late cases of midline or paramedian defects beyond the one-year follow-up though this was not clinically significant; compared to this, there was no incidence of lateral defects in the wound (p<0.01, McNemar’s test).

Conclusion

These preliminary results suggest that a dedicated lightweight titanized mesh is usable for primary reinforcement of rooftop incisions at the time of wound closure. Whilst this study supports the role of a mesh as a useful adjunct, larger studies and long-term follow-up would provide more sensitive assessments of its efficacy.

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.

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.

Long Term Outcome After Open Abdomen Treatment: Function and Quality of Life

Background: Open abdomen treatment (OAT) is widely accepted to manage severe abdominal conditions such as peritonitis and abdominal compartment syndrome but can be associated with high morbidity and mortality. The main risks in OAT are (1) entero-atmospheric fistula (EAF), (2) failure of primary fascial closure, and (3) incisional hernias. In this study, we assessed the long-term functional outcome after OAT to understand which factors impacted most on quality of life (QoL)/daily living activities and the natural course after OAT. Materials and Methods: After a retrospective analysis of 165 consecutive OAT patients over a period of 10 years (2002-2012) with over 65 clinical parameters that had been performed at our center (1), we initiated a prospective structured follow-up approach. All survivors were invited for a clinical follow-up. Forty complete datasets including clinical and social follow-up with SF-36 scores were available for full analysis. Results: The patients were dominantly male (75%) with a median age of 52 years. Primary fascial closure (PC) was achieved in 9/40 (23%), while in 77% a planned ventral hernia (PVH) approach was followed. A total of 3/4 of the PVH patients underwent a secondary-stage abdominal wall reconstruction (SSR), but 2/3 of these reconstructed patients developed recurrent hernias. Fifty-five percent of the patients with PC developed an incisional hernia, while 20% of all patients developed significant scarring (Vancouver Scar Score >8). Scar pain was described by 15% of the patients as "moderate" [Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 4-6] and by 10% as "severe" (VAS > 7). While hernia presence, PC or PVH, and scarring showed no impact on QoL, male sex and especially EAF formation significantly reduced QoL. Discussion: Despite many advantages, OAT was associated with relevant mortality and morbidity, especially in the early era before the implementation of a structured concept at our center. Follow-up revealed that hernia incidence after OAT and secondary reconstruction were high and that 25% of patients qualifying for a secondary reconstruction either did not want surgery or were unfit. Sex and EAF formation impacted significantly on QoL, which was lower than in the general population. With regard to hernia incidence, new strategies such as prophylactic mesh implantation upon fascial closure should be discussed analogous to other major abdominal procedures.

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.

Preventing incisional ventral hernias: important for patients but ignored by surgical specialities? A critical review

PURPOSE

Incisional ventral hernias (IHs) are a common complication across all surgical specialities requiring access to the abdomen, pelvis, and retroperitoneum. This public health issue continues to be widely ignored, resulting in appreciable morbidity and expenses. In this critical review, the issue is explored by an interdisciplinary group.

METHODS

A group of European surgeons encompassing representatives from abdominal wall, vascular, urological, gynecological, colorectal and hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgery have reviewed the occurrence of His in these disciplines.

RESULTS

Incisional hernias are a major public health issue with appreciable morbidity and cost implications. General surgeons are commonly called upon to repair IHs following an initial operation by others. Measures that may collectively reduce the frequency of IH across specialities include better planning and preparation (e.g. a fit patient, no time pressure, an experienced operator). A minimally invasive technique should be employed where appropriate. Our main recommendations in midline incisions include using the 'small bites' suture technique with a ≥ 4:1 suture-to-wound length, and adding prophylactic mesh augmentation in patients more likely to suffer herniation. For off-midline incisions, more research of this problem is essential.

CONCLUSION

Meticulous closure of the incision is significant for every patient. Raising awareness of the His is necessary in all surgical disciplines that work withing the abdomen or retroperitoneum. Across all specialties, surgeons should aim for a < 10% IH rate.

Prophylactic Onlay Mesh Implantation During Definitive Fascial Closure After Open Abdomen Therapy (PROMOAT): Absorbable or Non-absorbable? Methodical Description and Results of a Feasibility Study

Introduction: Incisional hernia development after open abdomen therapy (OAT) remains a common complication in the long run. To demonstrate the feasibility, we describe our method of prophylactic onlay mesh implantation with definitive fascial closure after open abdomen therapy (PROMOAT). To display the feasibility of this concept, we evaluated the short-term outcome after absorbable and non-absorbable synthetic mesh implantation as prophylactic onlay. Material and Methods: Ten patients were prospectively enrolled, and prophylactic onlay mesh (long-term absorbable or non-absorbable) was implanted at the definitive fascial closure operation. The cohort was followed up with a special focus on incisional hernia development and complications. Results: OAT duration was 21.0 ± 12.6 days (95% CI: 16.9-25.1). Definitive fascial closure was achieved in all cases. No incisional hernias were present during a follow-up interval of 12.4 ± 10.8 months (range 1-30 months). Two seromas and one infected hematoma occurred. The outcome did not differ between mesh types. Conclusion: The prophylactic onlay mesh implantation of alloplastic, long-term absorbable, or non-absorbable meshes in OAT showed promising results and only a few complications that were of minor concern. Incisional hernias did not occur during follow-up. To validate the feasibility and safety of prophylactic onlay mesh implantation long-term data and large-scaled prospective trials are needed to give recommendations on prophylactic onlay mesh implantation after OAT.

Biomechanical and adhesion comparison of linea alba prophylactic reinforcement with coated and uncoated three-dimensional T-shaped mesh in rabbits

Purpose:

Incisional hernia (IH) is a frequent complication of median laparotomy. The use of prophylactic mesh to reduce IH incidence has gained increasing attention. We hypothesized that in an animal model, linea alba prophylactic reinforcement with a three-dimensional T-shaped polypropylene mesh results in greater abdominal wall resistance.

Methods:

Study was performed in 27 rabbits. After abdominal midline incision, animals were divided into three groups according to the laparotomy closure method used: (1)3D T-shaped coated mesh; (2)3D T-shaped uncoated mesh; and (3) closure without mesh. After 4 months, each animal’s abdominal wall was resected and tensiometric tests were applied. Results included IH occurrence, adhesions to the mesh, and wound complications.

Results:

There was no significant difference between the groups in maximum tensile strength (p=0.250) or abdominal wall elongation under maximum stress (p=0.839). One rabbit from the control group developed IH (p=1.00). Small intestine and colon adhesions occurred only in the uncoated mesh group (p<0.001) and the degree of adhesions was higher in this group compared to the coated mesh group (p<0.05).

Conclusion:

Use of the current 3D T-shaped prophylactic mesh model did not result in a significant difference in tensiometric measurements when compared with simple abdominal wall closure in rabbits.

Systemic biomarkers currently implicated in the formation of abdominal wall hernia: A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Surgery to the abdominal wall is ubiquitous worldwide and hernia treatment is challenging and expensive, posing a critical need to tailor treatment to individual patient risk-factors. In this systematic review, we consider specific systemic factors with potential as biomarkers of hernia formation.

METHODS

A healthcare database-assisted search, following PRISMA guidelines, identified journal articles for inclusion and analysis.

RESULTS

14 biomarker studies were selected, comparing hernia patients and hernia-free controls, focusing on markers of extracellular matrix (ECM) remodelling and collagen turnover. Matrix metalloproteinase-2 was increased in patients with inguinal hernia. Markers of type IV collagen synthesis were increased in patients with abdominal wall hernia; while markers of fibrillar collagen synthesis were reduced. Additional other ECM signalling proteins differ significantly within published studies.

CONCLUSION

We identify a lack of high-quality evidence of systemic biomarkers in tailoring treatment strategies relative to patient-specific risks, but recognise the potential held within biomarker-based diagnostic studies to improve management of hernia pathogeneses.

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.

Can Electric Nose Breath Analysis Identify Abdominal Wall Hernia Recurrence and Aortic Aneurysms? A Proof-of-Concept Study

Introduction. This pilot study evaluates if an electronic nose (eNose) can distinguish patients at risk for recurrent hernia formation and aortic aneurysm patients from healthy controls based on volatile organic compound analysis in exhaled air. Both hernia recurrence and aortic aneurysm are linked to impaired collagen metabolism. If patients at risk for hernia recurrence and aortic aneurysms can be identified in a reliable, low-cost, noninvasive manner, it would greatly enhance preventive options such as prophylactic mesh placement after abdominal surgery. Methods. From February to July 2017, a 3-armed proof-of-concept study was conducted at 3 hospitals including 3 groups of patients (recurrent ventral hernia, aortic aneurysm, and healthy controls). Patients were measured once at the outpatient clinic using an eNose with 3 metal-oxide sensors. A total of 64 patients (hernia, n = 29; aneurysm, n = 35) and 37 controls were included. Data were analyzed by an automated neural network, a type of self-learning software to distinguish patients from controls. Results. Receiver operating curves showed that the automated neural network was able to differentiate between recurrent hernia patients and controls (area under the curve 0.74, sensitivity 0.79, and specificity 0.65) as well as between aortic aneurysm patients and healthy controls (area under the curve 0.84, sensitivity 0.83, and specificity of 0.81). Conclusion. This pilot study shows that the eNose can distinguish patients at risk for recurrent hernia and aortic aneurysm formation from healthy controls.

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]