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.

Medium-term safety and efficacy profile of paraesophageal hernia repair with Phasix-ST® mesh: a single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Hernia recurrence after laparoscopic repair is a perplexing problem. In an effort to reduce anatomical and clinical recurrences, different type of meshes have been used to bolster the esophageal hiatus.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess safety, medium-term efficacy, and quality of life improvement after laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia reinforced with a biosynthetic absorbable mesh (Phasix-ST^®).

METHODS

Observational single-center retrospective single-arm cohort study (November 2015-February 2021). We included all adult patients (> 18 years old) who underwent laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair with Phasix-ST^® mesh and Toupet fundoplication.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were included. The median postoperative stay was 3.2 days (range 2-9) and the postoperative complication rate was 11.7%. The median follow-up time was 27 months (range 1-53). No mesh-related complications were detected. Hernia recurrence was diagnosed in six patients (8.8%). The recurrence-free probability at 34 months was 0.89 (95% CI 0.807-0.988) while at 60 months was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.97). Hernia recurrences were mostly observed between 21 and 36 months after the operation. None of the patients required surgical revision and all were managed with PPI. Postoperative dysphagia requiring endoscopic balloon dilatation occurred in 2.9% of patients. Compared to baseline, both the GERD-HRQL (15.2 ± 6.2 vs. 3.2 ± 3.1; p = 0.026) and all SF-36 items were significantly improved (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic crura augmentation with Phasix-ST^® mesh combined with a Toupet fundoplication is safe and seems effective in the medium-term follow-up. Phasix-ST^® crural reinforcement resulted in low hernia recurrence rate with a sustained symptoms and quality of life improvement.

Prevalence and risk factors for diastasis recti abdominis: a review and proposal of a new anatomical variation

PURPOSE

Diastasis recti abdominis (DRA) or rectus diastasis is an acquired condition in which the rectus muscles are separated by an abnormal distance along their length, but with no fascia defect. To data there is no consensus about risk factors for DRA. The aim of this article is to critically review the literature about prevalence and risk factor of DRA.

METHOD

A total of 13 papers were identified.

RESULTS

The real prevalence of DRA is unknown because the prevalence rate varies with measurement method, measurement site and judgment criteria, but it is certainly an extremely frequent condition. Numbers of parity, BMI, diabetes are the most plausible risk factors. We identified a new anatomical variation in cadaveric dissection and in abdominal CT image evaluation: along the semilunar line the internal oblique aponeurosis could join the rectus sheath with only a posterior layer, so without a double layer (anterior and posterior) as usually described. We conducted a retrospective review of abdominal CT images and the presence of the posterior insertion only could be considered as a risk factor for DRA.

CONCLUSION

Further studies with large sample size, including nulliparous, primiparous, pluriparous and men too, are necessary for identify the real prevalence.