Long-term follow-up of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after emergency laparotomy. A retrospective controlled study

Prophylactic mesh placement in emergency midline laparotomy for intestinal perforation peritonitis: An appeal for caution

Prophylactic mesh placement (PMP) is increasingly being used to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia after routine and emergency midline laparotomy (EML). However, such studies are not available for EMLs done solely for intestinal perforation. Patients who underwent non-absorbable PMP during EML for intestinal perforation (Group A, 15 patients) were compared with those who had a conventional abdominal wall closure (Group B, 20 patients). The incidence of wound dehiscence was significantly higher in Group A, while surgical site infection (SSI), and incisional hernia were similar in both groups. Mesh explantation was needed in half the cases. A prophylactically placed non-absorbable mesh in patients undergoing EML for intestinal perforation is associated with significantly higher rates of wound dehiscence and of mesh explantation and therefore, routine use of such a mesh appears not to be justified.

Efficacy and safety of mesh closure in preventing wound failure following emergency laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of emergency laparotomy closure with and without prophylactic mesh.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed via literature databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Studies were examined for eligibility and included if they compared prophylactic mesh closure to the conventional laparotomy closure following emergency abdominal surgery. Both acute wound failure and incisional hernia (IH) occurence were our primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI), seroma/hematoma formation, Clavien-Dindo complications (score ≥ 3), total operative time, and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four comparative studies with a total of 817 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall acute wound failure and incisional hernia rate was significantly lower in the mesh group compared to non-mesh group (odd ratio (OR) 0.23, p = 0.002) and (OR 0.21, p = 0.00001), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the following outcomes: total operative time (mean difference (MD) 21.44, p = 0.15), SSI (OR 1.47, p = 0.06), seroma/haematoma formation (OR 2.74, p = 0.07), grade ≥ 3 Clavien-Dindo complications (OR 2.39, p = 0.28), and LOS (MD 0.26, p = 0.84).

CONCLUSION

The current evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh in emergency laparotomy is diverse and obscure. Although the data trends towards a reduction in the incidence of IH, a reliable conclusion requires further high-quality RCTs to fully assess the efficacy and safety of mesh use in an emergency setting.