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

The clinical consequences of burst abdomen after emergency midline laparotomy: a prospective, observational cohort study

PURPOSE

The emergency midline laparotomy is a commonly performed procedure with a burst abdomen being a critical surgical complication requiring further emergency surgery. This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with burst abdomen after emergency midline laparotomy.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, observational cohort study of patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy during a two-year period was done. Abdominal wall closure followed a standardized technique using monofilament, slowly absorbable suture in a continuous suturing technique with a suture-to-wound ratio of at least 4:1. Treatment of burst abdomen was surgical. Data, including intra-hospital postoperative complications, were collected and registered chronologically based on journal entries. The primary outcome was to describe postoperative complications, length of stay, and the overall morbidity based on the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), stratified between patients who did and did not suffer from a burst abdomen during admission.

RESULTS

A total of 543 patients were included in the final cohort, including 24 patients with burst abdomen during admission. The incidence of burst abdomen after emergency midline laparotomy was 4.4%. Patients with a burst abdomen had a higher total amount of complications per patient (median of 3, IQR 1.3-5.8 vs. median of 1, IQR 0.0-3.0; p = 0.001) and a significantly higher CCI (median of 53.0, IQR 40.3-94.8 vs. median of 21.0, IQR 0.0-42.0; p =  < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with burst abdomen had an increased risk of postoperative complications during admission as well as a longer and more complicated admission with multiple non-surgical complications.

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.