Implementing a protocol to prevent incisional hernia in high-risk patients: a mesh is a powerful tool

Abdominal wall closure: How do we do it in Spain? Survey of specialist general surgeons members of the AEC (Spanish Society of Surgeons)

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the knowledge of abdominal wall closure in a cohort of specialist general surgeons who are members of the AEC and to see its adequacy with current recommendations. Sub-analysis in terms of years of specialization.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Individual questionnaire of 21 questions on abdominal wall closure in elective and urgent context.

RESULTS

A total of 371 responses were received from specialist surgeons who are members of the AEC. Closure of the median laparotomy is performed with continuous suture in 99.7% and with slowly absorbable materials in 95.4%. 88.4% of surgeons report using the ratio equal to or greater than 4:1 between suture length and incision length (SL:IL) and short stitches. These results are equivalent in transverse and urgent elective laparotomy. 85.2% of the respondents systematically close trocars of 10 mm or more and 30.7% use prophylactic mesh in high-risk patients. Surgeons with less than 10 years of experience use the ratio ≥ 4:1 SL:SI and short stitches more than surgeons with more experience (93.4% vs 84.9%; P = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal wall closure among general surgeons who are members of the ACS is adequate and adjusted to the recommendations with a tendency to improve among surgeons with less experience. There is an opportunity for improvement in the use of prophylactic mesh in high-risk patients.

Prophylactic mesh to prevent incisional hernia in laparotomy for ovarian tumors

OBJECTIVE

Incisional hernias are a common complication of midline laparotomies. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of prophylactic mesh placement after midline laparotomy for ovarian tumors on the incidence of incisional hernia.

METHODS

We collected retrospective data from patients undergoing midline laparotomy for borderline or ovarian cancer with at least 12 months of follow-up, including those with and without mesh. Patient demographics, preoperative characteristics and risk factors for hernia were reported and grouped according to prophylactic mesh placement. A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify independent risk factors for incisional hernia. Kaplan-Meier curves illustrating the cumulative incidence of incisional hernia based on mesh placement were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 139 consecutive patients with available data were included, 58 in the non-mesh group and 81 in the mesh group, with high body mass index (BMI) as the most common reason for mesh placement. The mean (SD)) age was 60 years (13.97). A total of 11 patients (7.9%) had borderline tumors while 128 (92.1%) had invasive cancer. After clinical and radiological examination, 18.7% (26/139) of patients developed incisional hernia at a median follow-up of 35.8 months (IQR) 43.8): 31% (18/58) were detected in the non-mesh group, and 9.9% (8/81) in the mesh group (p<0.002). Multivariate analysis showed no-mesh placement (OR) 10; 95% CI) 2.8 to 35.919; p<0.001) as a significant risk factor for incisional hernia. Age ≥ 70 (OR 4.3; 95% CI 1.24 to 15; p=0.02) and BMI ≥ 29 (OR 4.4; 95% CI 1.27 to 14.93; p=0.019) were also identified as independent risk factors for hernia development. According to Kaplan-Meier curves, the cumulative incidence of incisional hernia was higher in the non-mesh group (p=0.002).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of incisional hernia was high in patients undergoing midline laparotomy for ovarian tumors. The addition of a prophylactic mesh may reduce this incidence, therefore there is a need to consider it as an option for high-risk patients, particularly those aged over 70 years or with a BMI ≥ 29 kg/m2.

Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure is controversial. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the placement of prophylactic mesh during emergency laparotomy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of Cochrane, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify RCT comparing prophylactic mesh augmentation and no mesh augmentation in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. We excluded observational studies, conference abstracts, elective surgeries, overlapping populations, and trial protocols. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023412934).

RESULTS

We screened 1312 studies and 33 were thoroughly reviewed. Four studies comprising 464 patients were included in the analysis. Mesh reinforcement was significantly associated with a decrease in incisional hernia incidence (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.07-0.44; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and synthetic mesh placement reduced fascial dehiscence (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01-0.53; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Mesh augmentation was associated with an increase in operative time (MD 32.09 min; 95% CI 6.39-57.78; p = 0.01; I2 = 49%) and seroma (OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.54-9.84; p = 0.004; I2 = 0%), but there was no difference in surgical-site infection or surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention or reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy decreases incisional hernia and fascial dehiscence incidence. Despite the risk of seroma, prophylactic mesh augmentation appears to be safe and might be considered for emergency laparotomy closure. Further studies evaluating long-term outcomes are still needed.

Does onlay mesh placement in emergency laparotomy prevent incisional hernia? A prospective randomized double-blind study

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness and safety of onlay mesh closure of emergency midline laparotomy to prevent incisional hernia.

METHODS

This is a prospective randomized double-blind study and was carried out in the General Surgery Clinic, Konya City Hospital, from August 1, 2020 to August, 1, 2021. The study included 108 patients who were randomly grouped in 2 groups: patients with conventional abdominal closure and closure using additional onlay mesh (1:1). The follow-up period was for a year. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia and secondary outcomes were clinical data like complications, hospital length of stay, re-operations.

RESULTS

It was observed that incisional hernia was present in 14 patients (27.4%) in conventional abdominal closure group and was in 2 patients using mesh (4%), (p = 0.001). Clavien-Dindo 3B complications were in rise in conventional closure group (p = 0.02). Of all complications, burst abdomen was significantly more common in conventional closure group (p = 0.04). The rate of surgically treated complications were higher in conventional closure group (p = 0.02). Clavien-Dindo 3A complications were more common in patients with contaminated wound in mesh group (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The use of mesh while closing the abdomen in emergency midline laparotomy reduces the risk of incisional hernia. Thus, to lower the risks of incisional hernia and its complications, prophylactic mesh can be used in high-risk patients.

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.