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

Long-Term Outcome of Chest Wall and Diaphragm Repair with Biological Materials

INTRODUCTION

 Chest wall and/or diaphragm reconstruction aims to preserve, restore, or improve respiratory function; conserve anatomical cavities; and upkeep postural and upper extremity support. This can be achieved by utilizing a wide range of different grafts made of synthetic, biological, autologous, or bioartificial materials. We aim to review our experience with decellularized bovine pericardium as graft in the past decade.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent surgical chest wall and/or diaphragm repair with decellularized bovine pericardium between January 1, 2012 and January 13, 2022 at our institution. All records were screened for patient characteristics, intra-/postoperative complications, chest tube and analgesic therapy duration, length of hospital stay, presence or absence of redo procedures, as well as morbidity and 30-day mortality. We then looked for correlations between implanted graft size and postoperative complications and gathered further follow-up information at least 2 months after surgery.

RESULTS

 A total of 71 patients either underwent isolated chest wall (n = 51), diaphragm (n = 12), or pericardial (n = 4) resection and reconstruction or a combination thereof. No mortality was recorded within the first 30 days. Major morbidity occurred in 12 patients, comprising secondary respiratory failure requiring bronchoscopy and invasive ventilation in 8 patients and secondary infections and delayed wound healing requiring patch removal in 4 patients. There was no correlation between the extensiveness of the procedure and extubation timing (chi-squared test, p = 0.44) or onset of respiratory failure (p = 0.27).

CONCLUSION

 A previously demonstrated general viability of biological materials for various reconstructive procedures appears to be supported by our long-term results.

The rate of ileostomy site incisional hernias: more common than we think?

PURPOSE

Incisional hernias (IH) rates after diverting loop ileostomy reversal (DLI-R) have been reported up to 24%. We aimed to characterize the incidence rate and risk factors associated with DLI-R site IH formation within 1-year in a large patient cohort.

METHODS

A retrospective review at a single quaternary referral center hospital of adult patients who underwent DLI-R over a 5-year period and abdominal computerized tomography (CT) imaging performed within 1-year for any indication postoperatively was conducted. All CTs scans were independently reviewed by staff surgeons to determine the presence of a fascial defect at the DLI-R site.

RESULTS

2,196 patients underwent DLI-R; of these, 569 (25.9%) underwent CT imaging for any indication. Mean patient age, 54.8 (± 14.9), BMI 27.6 kg/m2. 87 (15%) patients had a parastomal hernia at time of DLI-R. After median follow-up of 10 months, 203 patients (35.7%) had IH at the DLI-R site. Age (p = 0.14), sex (p = 0.39), race (p = 0.75), and smoking status (p = 0.82) weren't associated with IH after DLI-R. Comorbidities weren't significantly associated with IH following DLI-R. In univariate analysis, increased BMI (p < 0.001), presence of a parastomal hernia (p = 0.008), and suture type (p = 0.01) were associated with IH development. On multivariate analysis, BMI remained significant, and polyglyconate compared to polydioxanone suture were associated with higher rates of IH (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We observed that the rate of incisional hernias within 1-year of diverting ileostomy reversal was indeed common at 36%. Granted, a high percentage of the population was excluded due to heterogeneity in radiographic evaluation that could be mitigated in future prospective studies. Our study suggests that IH preventative strategies include weight loss for overweight and obese patients prior to DLI-R and that the optimal suture for DLI-R is polydioxanone.

Prophylactic mesh versus primary closure in emergency and elective surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

Incisional hernia is one of the most common post-operative complications. Previous studies showed that prophylactic mesh placement in laparotomy closure is safe and reduces the incidence of incisional hernia. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing post-operative complications after the use of prophylactic permanent mesh placement versus primary closure in patients undergoing elective or emergency laparotomies.

METHODS

A systematic review of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase and PubMed was performed in April 2024. Only randomized clinical trials were included. 1,234 studies were imported for screening. 280 were duplicated reports, 923 were excluded for irrelevancy and 16 were excluded after full-text review. Data were extracted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and pooled by a random-effects model. The primary outcome was incidence of incisional hernia. Secondary outcomes included post-operative complications and period of hospitalization.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies and 2,108 patients were included. Incisional hernia incidence was different between groups (risk ratio [RR] 0.30; 95% CI 0.21-0.43; p < 0.00001; I²=39%). This finding was confirmed in a subgroup analysis of elective (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.46; p < 0.00001; I²=48%) versus emergency laparotomies (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.19-0.43; p = 0.0001; I²=0%). There was no significant difference in incisional hernia incidence by locals of mesh placement. Secondary outcomes had shown no statistically significant difference between groups, except for seroma wherein primary closure had lower events (RR 1.80; CI 95% 1.21-2.68; p = 0.38; I²=7%).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing laparotomy, prophylactic permanent mesh placement is associated with a significant reduction on incidence of incisional hernia as compared to primary closure.

Prophylactic Biosynthetic Retrorectus Mesh Placement During Stoma Reversal Reduces the Rate of Stoma Site Incisional Hernia

INTRODUCTION

Stoma site incisional hernias (SSIHs) are associated with substantial long-term morbidity, and the rate can be as high as 30% to 40%. Recent efforts using prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) to reduce the development of hernias have shown encouraging outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the use of prophylactic biosynthetic mesh at the time of stoma reversal on the overall SSIH rate.

METHODS

This is an observational retrospective cohort study. A review of 101 consecutive patients who underwent PMR in the retrorectus plane from 2015 to 2020 was compared to 73 consecutive patients who underwent primary stoma closure without mesh from 2011 to 2014. The primary endpoint was the presence of SSIH on clinical examination or computed tomography after ostomy takedown.

RESULTS

In total, 174 cases were analyzed with 101 patients in the treatment group (median follow-up 45.2 months) and 73 patients in the control group (median follow-up 43.2 months). There were no major differences in preoperative characteristics between the groups. Fourteen patients developed SSIHs with 1 (1.0%) in the treatment arm and 13 (17.8%) in the control arm (p = 0.001). The majority of stomas were loop ileostomies and end colostomies, and stoma type did not affect hernia rates. On univariate analysis, body mass index (p = 0.029) and chronic kidney disease < 3 (p = 0.003) were independent predictors of hernia formation, while mesh was significantly protective (p = 0.000057).

DISCUSSION

PMR with biosynthetic mesh at the time of stoma reversal and closure is an effective procedure to reduce the incidence of SSIHs and does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of complications.

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.

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.

Biologic Mesh in Surgery: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis of Selected Outcomes in 51 Studies and 6079 Patients

BACKGROUND

In recent decades, biologic mesh (BM) has become an important adjunct to surgical practice. Recent evidence-based clinical applications of BM include but are not limited to: reconstruction of abdominal wall defects; breast reconstruction; face, head and neck surgery; periodontal surgery; other hernia repairs (diaphragmatic, hiatal/paraesophageal, inguinal and perineal); hand surgery; and shoulder arthroplasty. Prior systematic reviews of BM in complex abdominal wall hernia repair had several shortcomings that our comprehensive review seeks to address, including exclusion of laparoscopic repair, assessment of risk of bias, use of an acceptable meta-analytic method and review of risk factors identified in multivariable regression analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We sought articles of BM for open ventral hernia repair reporting on early complications, late complications or recurrences and included minimum of 50. We used the quality in prognostic studies risk of bias assessment tool. Random effects meta-analysis was applied.

RESULTS

This comprehensive review selected 62 articles from 51 studies that included 6,079 patients. Meta-analytic pooling found that early complications are present in about 50%, surgical site occurrences (SSOs) in 37%, surgical site infections (SSIs) in 18%, reoperation in 7%, readmission in 20% and mortality in 3%. Meta-analytic estimates of late outcomes included overall complications (42%), SSOs (40%) and SSIs (22%). Specific SSOs included seroma (14%), hematoma (4%), abscess (10%), necrosis (5%), dehiscence (8%) and fistula formation (5%). Reoperation occurred in about 17%, mesh explantation in 9% and recurrence in 36%.

CONCLUSION

Estimates of nearly all outcomes from individual studies were highly heterogeneous and sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions generally failed to explain this heterogeneity. Recurrence is the only outcome for which there are consistent findings for risk factors. Bridge placement of BM is associated with higher risk of recurrence. Prior hernia repair, history of reintervention and history of mesh removal were also risk factors for increased recurrence.

Differences in biomechanics of abdominal wall closure with and without mesh reinforcement: A study in post mortem human specimens

INTRODUCTION

Small bites for the closure of the abdominal wall after midline laparotomy result in significantly less incisional hernias in comparison with large bites. However, fundamental knowledge of underlying biomechanical phenomena remains sparse. The objective of this study was to develop a digital image correlation-based method to compare different suturing techniques in terms of strain pattern after closure of a midline laparotomy in a passive model just after the time of surgery.

METHODS

A digital image correlation (DIC)-based method was used for the comparison of strain fields on the external surface of the myofascial abdominal wall (skin and subcutaneous fat removed) among six configurations, including an intact linea alba in five post mortem human specimens. The second configuration comprised primary mass closure with small bites (five mm between two consecutive stitches and five mm distance from the incision, 5x5 mm). The third configuration was primary mass closure with large bites (ten mm by ten mm, 10x10 mm). The fourth, fifth and sixth configuration comprised primary mass closure with large bites and the placement of a mesh in onlay position with two different overlaps and the use of glue to simulate the integration of the mesh within the soft tissue.

RESULTS

No visible difference was observed between 5x5 and 10x10 mm closure configurations. However, the use of mesh as suture line reinforcement highlighted a stiffer behavior of the midline area for similar intra-abdominal pressure, which was amplified when a larger mesh overlap was used. However, the whole abdominal wall showed quite similar shapes for the various configurations, except for the configuration with mesh reinforcement and the use of glue.

CONCLUSION

Mesh reinforcement incited lower opening tension profiles in the midline area of the abdominal wall. following closure of the linea alba in median laparotomy. The next step should be to investigate the impact of mesh location (e.g. retromuscular) and different time points after surgery.

Abdominal wall closure with prophylactic mesh in colorectal operations

BACKGROUND

Prospective studies demonstrate that over one-third of patients undergoing standard suture closure of laparotomy wounds will develop incisional hernias (IHs). Whilst prophylactic mesh has been demonstrated to decrease IH rates in clean laparotomy wounds, mesh has been associated with high rates of seroma formation (>30%), infection (>10%) and pain, discouraging many surgeons from using mesh, especially combined with intestinal surgery. The aim of this study is to review the experience of a single colorectal surgeon who, after noting high IH rates in his own patients, started placing prophylactic mesh routinely in patients judged to be at high risk of IH.

METHODS

The records of all patients undergoing bowel resections and ileostomy closure by one surgeon from 2008 to 2018 were independently retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

Of the 935 procedures identified, 662 patients underwent midline laparotomy with bowel resection and 273 patients underwent closure of loop ileostomy. Mesh was placed prophylactically in 221 (23.6%) of 935 procedures. Comparing the mesh and non-mesh groups, wound infections occurred in nine (4.1%) versus 23 (3.2%) (P = 0.53), seromas occurred in nine (4.1%) versus six (0.8%) (P = 0.003) and chronic pain was noted in 12 (5.4%) versus 17 (2.4%) (P = 0.04). The mean follow-up was 33 months in both the mesh and non-mesh groups. IHs have occurred in three (1.3%) of the mesh group compared to 95 (13.3%) of the non-mesh group procedures (P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In colorectal operations, prophylactic mesh decreases the risk of IH without prohibitive complications.

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.

Incisional Hernia After Minimally Invasive Lateral Retroperitoneal Surgery: Case Series and Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal (lateral-MIS) approaches to the spine involve traversing the lateral abdominal wall musculature and fascia. Incisional hernia is an uncommon approach-related complication.

OBJECTIVE

To review the incidence, treatment, and preventative measures of incisional hernia after lateral-MIS approaches.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of cases performed by a single surgeon from 2011 to 2016. All patients who underwent lateral-MIS approaches at this institution were included. Patients with a postoperative diagnosis of lateral hernia on physical exam and corroborating advanced imaging findings were included in this study. Cases of flank bulge due to peripheral nerve injury were excluded.

RESULTS

Three-hundred three patients underwent lateral-MIS approaches to the spine. Three (1%) patients with incisional hernia were identified. Two patients presented with a clinically symptomatic incisional hernia, while 1 patient was diagnosed incidentally after a routine abdominal magnetic resonance imaging for an unrelated reason. No patients suffered bowel entrapment or strangulation.

CONCLUSION

Incisional hernia after lateral-MIS approaches is rare. Patients with incisional hernias may be susceptible to bowel incarceration and ischemia, though the incidence of this is probably low. Meticulous closure of the fascia is critical to avoiding this complication.

Prophylactic Mesh for Hernia Prevention: Has the Time Arrived?

Incisional and parastomal hernias continue to be vexing problems for patients and surgeons. Risk factors are generally patient-related and/or technical in nature, and in some cases, can be altered, resulting in improved outcomes. Improved fascial closure techniques can only partly reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation. Even under optimal circumstances, using time tested closure techniques and materials, the rate remains high, due primarily to factors that are not modifiable or are unidentifiable. In such cases, there may be a beneficial role for prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA), wherein mesh is implanted at the time of initial surgery or stoma formation. Several high-risk groups that might benefit from PMA have been identified, including patients undergoing open abdominal aneurysm repair or colorectal procedures, obese patients, and patients requiring creation of permanent gastrointestinal or urological stomas. Although the initial results of PMA are promising, the benefits of this strategy must be weighed against potential risks. Outcome measures to assess efficacy should include not only hernia recurrence but also quality of life, surgical-site occurrences, and cost. Further studies are warranted to predict which specific patient populations might benefit most from PMA and to identify ideal mesh materials as well as preferred implantation sites and methods of mesh fixation.

Hernia prevention: practice patterns and surgeons' attitudes about abdominal wall closure and the use of prophylactic mesh

PURPOSE

The penetration of hernia prevention techniques into surgical practice remains unknown.

METHODS

A survey about knowledge/attitudes on hernia prevention was sent to the members of hernia societies.

RESULTS

The 497 respondents were mostly from the US (47%) or Europe (40%). Most reported practicing, but not measuring their suture-to-wound length closure of > 4:1 (63%) and practicing but not measuring the number of stitches (58%). Reasons for not using short stitch closure were: does not apply to patient population (19%), not familiar enough with methods to correctly execute (25%), takes too long (13%), not reimbursed (4%), concerned about closure-related complications (27%), and other (22%). Regarding prophylactic mesh, respondents stated they were not familiar with literature (11%), familiar with literature but would not use (24%), familiar with literature and interested in use (45%), familiar with literature and using (15%), and other (5%).

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be some application of hernia prevention principles related to fascial closure; however, the use of prophylactic mesh still appears to be controversial.

Incidence, risk factors and prevention of stoma site incisional hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Stoma reversal might lead to a stoma site incisional hernia. Recently, prophylactic mesh reinforcement of the stoma site has gained increased attention, supporting the need for accurate data on the incidence of and risk factors for stoma site incisional hernia and to identify high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to assess incidence, risk factors and prevention of stoma site incisional hernias.

METHOD

Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases were searched. Studies reporting the incidence of stoma site incisional hernia after stoma reversal were included. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data on incidence, risk factors and prophylactic mesh reinforcement were extracted.

RESULTS

Of 1440 articles found, 33 studies comprising 4679 reversals were included. The overall incidence of incisional hernia was 6.5% [range 0%-38%, median follow-up 27.5 (17.54-36) months]. Eleven studies assessed stoma site incisional hernia as the primary end-point, showing an incidence of 17.7% [range 1.7%-36.1%, median follow-up 28 (15.25-51.70) months]. Body mass index, diabetes and surgery for malignant disease were found to be independent risk factors, as derived from eight studies. Two retrospective comparative cohort studies showed significantly lower rates of stoma site incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement compared with nonmesh controls [6.4% vs 36.1% (P = 0.001); 3% vs 19% (P = 0.04)].

CONCLUSION

Stoma site incisional hernia should not be underestimated as a long-term problem. Body mass index, diabetes and malignancy seem to be potential risk factors. Currently, limited data are available on the outcomes of prophylactic mesh reinforcement to prevent stoma site incisional hernia.

Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement versus Sutured Closure to Prevent Incisional Hernias after Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair via Midline Laparotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent late complication after open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. We aimed to determine whether prophylactic mesh reinforcement of the abdominal wall at open AAA repair via midline laparotomy reduces the rate of incisional hernia compared to standard sutured closure.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA statement (PROSPERO registration CRD42017072508). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic mesh reinforcement with standard sutured closure were eligible for inclusion. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. A meta-analysis with a random effects model was carried out to estimate pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the incidence of, and re-operation rate for, incisional hernias. Assessments of methodological quality, quality of evidence, and strength of recommendations were done with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Four RCTs with a total of 388 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that mesh reinforcement significantly reduced the risk of incisional hernia after AAA repair compared with standard sutured closure (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.66). The pooled rate of re-operations was not different between groups (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11-1.05). Mesh reinforcement did not cause more intra-operative or post-operative complications than sutured closure. The risk of bias in studies was low and the quality of evidence was rated as moderate.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement of the abdominal wall after open AAA repair via midline laparotomy significantly reduces the risk of incisional hernia. However, no significant difference in re-operation for incisional hernia was found.

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.

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.