Prophylactic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Following Midline Laparotomy-Long-Term Results of 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).

Giant ovarian mucinous cystadenoma complicating term pregnancy: a rare case report

Introduction

Adnexal masses in pregnancy are identified at a rate of 2 to 20 in 1000, which mostly are benign simple cysts. Although the majority of adnexal masses will resolve spontaneously by the beginning of the second trimester, some cases are persistent forms which can result in complications for both mother and fetus.

Presentation of case

A 31-year-old pregnant woman was diagnosed with a left ovarian mucinous cystadenoma. The ovarian cyst was first detected in the 8th week of pregnancy, measured 5×5 cm and reached 40×30 cm at 38 weeks of gestation. The patient underwent an elective cesarean delivery along with a left salpingo-oophorectomy at term. An alive female baby of 3000 g was delivered with good APGAR scores at the first and fifth minutes. Histologic examination confirmed the diagnosis of a benign mucinous cystadenoma.

Dicussion

The option of surgical intervention versus conservative management should be tailored to the patient's physical symptoms, characteristics of the tumor, and gestational age. An elective cesarean section along with salpingo-oophorectomy can be adopted for a giant ovarian cyst complicating term pregnancy. There is a risk of recurrence after a removal of ovarian mucinous cystadenoma.

Conclusion

Ovarian cysts coexisting with pregnancy should be followed up properly by routine ultrasound and regular antenatal care. The decision to postpone surgical management of a complex mass until the time of delivery must balance the risks and benefits for mother and fetus. After surgery, the patient needs to be provided an appropriate follow-up care to manage postoperative recurrence.

External validation and revision of Penn incisional hernia prediction model: A large-scale retrospective cohort of abdominal operations

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia (IH) manifests in 10%-15% of abdominal surgeries and patients at elevated risk of this complication should be identified for prophylactic intervention. This study aimed to externally validate the Penn hernia risk calculator.

METHODS

The Ramathibodi abdominal surgery cohort was constructed by linking relevant hospital databases from 2010 to 2021. Penn hernia risk scores were calculated according to the original model which was externally validated using a seven-step approach. An updated model which included four additional predictor variables (i.e., age, immunosuppressive medication, ostomy reversal, and transfusion) added to those of the three original predictors (i.e., body mass index, chronic liver disease, and open surgery) was also evaluated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was estimated, and calibration performance was compared using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit method for the observed/expected (O/E) ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 12,155 abdominal operations were assessed. The original Penn model yielded fair discrimination with an AUC (95% confidence interval (CI)) of 0.645 (0.607, 0.683). The updated model that included the additional predictor variables achieved an acceptable AUC (95% CI) of 0.733 (0.698, 0.768) with the O/E ratio of 0.968 (0.848, 1.088).

CONCLUSION

The updated model achieved improved discrimination and calibration performance, and should be considered for the identification of high-risk patients for further hernia prevention strategy.

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.

Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement vs. primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): long-term outcomes of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background

Incisional hernia occurs approximately in 40% of high-risk patients after midline laparotomy. Prophylactic mesh placement has shown promising results, but long-term outcomes are needed. The present study aimed to assess the long-term incisional hernia rates of the previously conducted PRIMA trial with radiological follow-up.

Methods

In the PRIMA trial, patients with increased risk of incisional hernia formation (AAA or BMI ≥27 kg/m2) were randomised in a 1:2:2 ratio to primary suture, onlay mesh or sublay mesh closure in three different countries in eleven institutions. Incisional hernia during follow-up was diagnosed by any of: CT, ultrasound and physical examination, or during surgery. Assessors and patients were blinded until 2-year follow-up. Time-to-event analysis according to intention-to-treat principle was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models. Trial registration: NCT00761475 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Findings

Between 2009 and 2012, 480 patients were randomized: 107 primary suture, 188 onlay mesh and 185 sublay mesh. Five-year incisional hernia rates were 53.4% (95% CI: 40.4-64.8), 24.7% (95% CI: 12.7-38.8), 29.8% (95% CI: 17.9-42.6), respectively. Compared to primary suture, onlay mesh (HR: 0.390, 95% CI: 0.248-0.614, p < 0.001) and sublay mesh (HR: 0.485, 95% CI: 0.309-0.761, p = 0.002) were associated with a significantly lower risk of incisional hernia development.

Interpretation

Prophylactic mesh placement remained effective in reducing incisional hernia occurrence after midline laparotomy in high-risk patients during long-term follow-up. Hernia rates in the primary suture group were higher than previously anticipated.

Funding

B. Braun.

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

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

Hernia Prevention Using Biologic Mesh and/or Small Bites: A Multispecialty 2 × 2 Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Ventral incisional hernias are the most common complication after abdominal operation. Randomized trials have shown efficacy of prophylactic synthetic mesh and small bites. Adoption of these practices has been limited due to concerns with placement of synthetic mesh in contaminated cases and small bites in an overweight population. We sought to assess the efficacy of prophylactic biologic mesh and small bites to prevent postoperative major complications: ventral incisional hernias, surgical site infection, reoperation, and death.

STUDY DESIGN

High-risk patients (overweight/obese, current smoker) undergoing abdominal operation with a midline incision (5 cm or greater) were randomized (2 × 2 factorial trial) to receive either sublay biologic mesh or no mesh and either small bites (0.5 × 0. 5cm) or large bites (1 × 1 cm) fascial closure. The primary outcome measure was major complications at 1 year postoperative. CONSORT guidelines were followed, and this study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03148496). Assuming α = 0.05, β = 0.20, and Δ = 20%, it was estimated that 105 patients were needed. Primary outcome was assessed using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were randomized: 52 (49%) to mesh, 55 (51%) to no mesh, 55 (51%) to small bites, and 52 (49%) to large bites. Of the patients, 16% were smokers, 31% were overweight, and 55% were obese. At 1 year postoperative, there were no differences in major complications between groups (mesh vs no mesh 21% vs 16%, p = 0.62; small vs large bites 18% vs 19%, p = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial, biologic mesh and small bites appear to have no benefit. Further randomized trials are needed among high-risk patients before widespread adoption of prophylactic biologic mesh or small bites.

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.

Abdominal wound dehiscence and incisional hernia prevention in midline laparotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia (IH) is the main complication after laparotomy. In an attempt to reduce this complication, mesh techniques and studies in which the closure technique is modified have been proposed. Both types are characterized by comparison with the closure described as standard or conventional: 1 × 1, mass, and continuous closure. For this study, modified closure techniques (MCTs) were considered as those techniques in which an extra suture is placed (reinforced tension line (RTL), retention), the closure point is modified in distance (small bites) or shape (CLDC, Smead Jones, interrupted, Cardiff point) and which aim to reduce these complications. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate the effectiveness of MCTs for reducing the incidence of IH and abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) to provide objective support for their recommendation.

METHODS

An NMA was performed according to the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of IH and AWD, and the secondary objective was to determine the incidence of postoperative complications. Only published clinical trials were included. The risk of bias was analyzed, and the random-effects model was used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

Twelve studies comparing 3540 patients were included. The incidence of HI was lower in RTL, retention suture, and small bites, these techniques showed statistical differences with pooled ORs (95% CI) of 0.28 (0.09-0.83), 0.28 (0.13-0.62), and 0.44 (0.31-0.62), respectively. Associated complications, including hematoma, seroma, and postoperative pain, could not be analyzed; however, MCTs did not increase the risk of surgical site infection.

CONCLUSION

Small bites, RTL, and retention sutures decreased the prevalence of IH. RTL and retention suture decreased the prevalence of AWD. RTL was the best technique as it reduced both complications (IH and AWD) and had the best SUCRA and P-scores, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for net effect was 3.

REGISTRATION

This study was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42021231107.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement for midline incisional hernia prevention: systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication after abdominal surgery. Prevention of IH is matter of intense research. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) has been shown to be promising in the minimization of IH risk after elective midline laparotomy.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PMR vs. primary suture closure (PSC). Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (MD) were used as pooled effect size measures whereas 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were used to assess relative inference.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (2332 patients) were included. Overall, 1280 (54.9%) underwent PMR while 1052 (45.1%) PSC. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 12 to 67 months. The incidence of IH was reduced for PMR vs. PSC (13.4% vs. 27.5%). The estimated pooled IH RR for PMR vs. PSC is 0.38 (95% CI 0.24-0.58; p < 0.001). Stratified subgroup analysis according to mesh location shows a risk reduction for intraperitoneal (RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.48-0.89), preperitoneal (RR = 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.81), retromuscular (RR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.24-0.92) and onlay (RR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.51) compared to PSC. The seroma RR was higher for PMR (RR = 2.05; p = 0.0008). No differences were found for hematoma (RR = 1.49; p = 0.34), surgical site infection (SSI) (RR = 1.17; p = 0.38), operative time (OT) (MD = 0.27; p = 0.413), and hospital length of stay (HLOS) (MD = -0.03; p = 0.237).

CONCLUSIONS

PMR seems effective in reducing the risk of IH after elective midline laparotomy compared to PSC in the medium-term follow-up. While the risk of postoperative seroma appears higher for PMR, hematoma, SSI, HLOS and OT seems comparable.

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

Background

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

Method

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

Result

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

Conclusion

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

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.

Use of a bioabsorbable mesh in midline laparotomy closure to prevent incisional hernia: randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of a bioabsorbable mesh at the time of closure of a midline laparotomy for IH prevention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter, randomized clinical trial including patients undergoing abdominal surgical procedures through a midline laparotomy incision was designed. In the group of mesh (n = 167) the incision was closed using a continuous polydioxanone suture (PDS) plus a bioabsorbable mesh. In the control group (n = 165) a continuous PDS single layer suture was only used. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the two groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of IH at 6, 12 and 24 months. Assessment of IH was done using a CT scan.

RESULTS

At 6 months, the rates of IH were 15.2% and 24.8% in the experimental and control groups, respectively (relative risk [RR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.98, P = 0.042). At 12 months, the rate of IH continued to be significantly lower in the experimental group (21.4% vs. 33.1%, P = 0.033), but at 24 months, there were no significant differences between the study groups with a follow-up rate of only 37.5%. The number needed to treat (NNT) was 11 and 9 at 6 and 12 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The bioabsorbable mesh significantly prevented IH during the first year. Not reliable conclusions can be drawn across the second year. This may suggest that the any of the closing technique assessed in this study would have a "palliative" transient effect for preventing IH in the long-term.

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.

Prevention of incisional hernia with a reinforced tension line (RTL) versus primary suture only in midline laparotomies: 3-year follow-up in a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

Incisional hernia (IH) has an incidence of 10-23%, which can increase to 38% in specific risk groups. The objective of this study is to report the results at 3 years of follow-up of the use of the reinforced tension line (RTL) technique compared with primary suture only (PSO) closure in the prevention of IH in high-risk patients undergoing laparotomy.

METHODS

Open randomized controlled clinical trial. Included were patients older than 18 years who underwent midline laparotomy, emergency or scheduled, who were considered high risk, and who completed 3-year follow-up. The patients were randomized 1:1 to the RTL technique or to PSO. The objective was to report the incidence of IH and the complications associated with the closure method. Intention-to-treat analysis and Cox regression were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were randomized; 51 patients from the RTL group and 53 patients from the PSO group finished the 3-year follow-up. The incidence of IH was higher in the PSO group (15/53, 28.3%) than the RTL group (5/51, 9.8%) (p = 0.016, OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14-0.88, number needed to treat 5.4, log-rank test p = 0.017). The groups were similar in the rates of surgical site infection, hematoma, seroma, and postoperative pain during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The RTL technique is useful in the prevention of IH when compared with PSO in high-risk midline laparotomy patients, and it is not associated with a higher percentage of complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Local Committee CI-HRAEB-2013-020. March 13, 2013.

CLINICAL TRIALS

NCT02136628, retrospectively registered.

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.

[REPARATIVE SURGERY OF PRESSURE-REGULATING BALLOON HERNIA AFTER ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER REPLACEMENT: A CASE REPORT]

A 74-year-old male with post-prostatectomy incontinence underwent artificial urinary sphincter replacement due to device malfunction. Three months after the replacement surgery, he presented for a consultation due to a bulging area in his lower abdomen. Computed tomography revealed a hernia of the pressure-regulating balloon (PRB), while the device was working well. In the reparative surgery, reopening the lower abdominal incision, the PRB was carefully restored to its previous position after creating a sufficient submuscular space. As the rectus abdominis fascia showed an adequate strength, the fascia was tightly sutured without using a prosthetic mesh. Thereafter, the patient has been free from incontinence for two and a half years without hernia recurrence. Given the mechanical nature of the device, replacement surgery is sometimes required over time. Tissue fragility due to repetitive surgeries and increasing ambient pressure due to space reduction derived from the PRB deflation could cause PRB hernia. Such cases can be treated under careful manipulation without damaging the device. Considering the future potential need for repeated surgery, it would be preferable not to use prosthetic mesh, as it can cause dense adhesion.

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.

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.