Closure of Iterative Laparotomy in Patients With Previous Mesh Reinforcement a Cohorts' Study. Short-Term Results

Purpose: Due to extension of prophylactic mesh indications use will become more common to find patients receiving an iterative laparotomy (IL) over a previous reinforced abdominal wall. The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes after IL in patients with previous mesh reinforcement. Methods: This study was a prospective secondary analysis of midline laparotomy closure performed from July 2017 to July 2018 registered in PHACPA study (NCT02658955). IL were included and surgery characteristics and outcomes analyzed. We compared two groups: with (PreM) or without previous prophylactic onlay mesh reinforcement (PreS) Subgroups' analysis, risk factors for complications and survival free hernia analysis were performed. Results: 121 IL were analyzed. Only obesity was associated with higher SSO (OR 2.6; CI 95% 1.02-6.90; p = 0.04) There were 15 incisional hernias (IH) (14.4%). Group with previous mesh reinforcement (pre M) had a higher statistically significative incidence of IH (OR = 1.21; CI 95% 1.05-1.39; p = 0.015). Use of slowly absorbable suture (OR = 0.74; CI 95% 0.60-0.91; p = 0.001), USP 2/0 suture (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; p = 0.033), and small bites technique (OR = 0.81; CI 95% 0.72-0.90; p = 0.011) were associated with less IH. Conclusion: IL has a high percentage of complications and IH. In case of IL without previous reinforcement, a mesh can help to reduce IH. Our data cannot clearly support any technique to close an IL with previous mesh.

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

PURPOSE

The small bites (SB) technique for closure of elective midline laparotomies (EMLs) and a prophylactic mesh (PM) in high-risk patients are suggested by the guidelines to prevent incisional hernias (IHs) and fascial dehiscence (FD). Our aim was to implement a protocol combining both the techniques and to analyze its outcomes.

METHODS

Prospective data of all EMLs were collected for 2 years. Results were analyzed at 1 month and during follow-up. The incidence of HI and FD was compared by groups (M = Mesh vs. S = suture) and by subgroups depending on using SB.

RESULTS

A lower number of FD appeared in the M group (OR 0.0692; 95% CI 0.008-0.56; P = 0.01) in 197 operations. After a mean follow-up of 29.23 months (N = 163; min. 6 months), with a lower frequency of IH in M group (OR 0.769; 95% CI 0.65-0.91; P < 0.0001). (33) The observed differences persisted after a propensity matching score: FD (OR 0.355; 95% CI 0.255-0.494; P < 0.0001) and IH (OR 0.394; 95% CI 0.24-0.61; P < 0.0001). On comparing suturing techniques by subgroups, both mesh subgroups had better outcomes. PM was the main factor related to the reduction of IH (HR 11.794; 95% CI 4.29-32.39; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Following the protocol using PM and SB showed a lower rate of FD and HI. A PM is safe and effective for the prevention of both HI and FD after MLE, regardless of the closure technique used.

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

BACKGROUND

Prevention of incisional hernias with a prophylactic mesh in emergency surgery is controversial. The present study aimed to analyze the long-term results of prophylactic mesh used for preventing incisional hernia after emergency midline laparotomies.

METHODS

This study was a registered (NCT04578561) retrospective analysis of patients who underwent an emergency midline laparotomy between January 2009 and July 2010 with a follow-up period of longer than 2 years. Long-term outcomes and risk factors for the development of incisional hernias between patients who received a prophylactic reinforcement mesh (Group M) and suture (Group S) were compared.

RESULTS

From an initial 266 emergency midline laparotomies, 187 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 64.4 months (SD 35). Both groups had similar characteristics, except for a higher rate of previous operations (62 vs. 43.2%; P = 0.01) and operation due to a revision laparotomy (32.5 vs.13%; P = 0.02) in the M group. During follow-up, 29.9% of patients developed an incisional hernia (Group S 36.6% vs. Group M 14.3%; P = 0.002). Chronic mesh infections were diagnosed in 2 patients, but no mesh explants were needed, and no patient in the M group developed chronic pain. Long-term risk factors for incisional hernia were as follows: smoking (HR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.318-4.624; P = 0.05), contaminated surgery (HR = 2.98; 95% CI 1.142-7.8; P = 0.02), surgical site infection (SSI; HR = 3.83; 95% CI 1.86-7.86; P = 0.001), and no use of prophylactic mesh (HR = 5.09; 95% CI 2.1-12.2; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Incidence of incisional hernias after emergency midline laparotomies is high and increases with time. High-risk patients, contaminated surgery, and surgical site infection (SSI) benefit from mesh reinforcement. Prophylactic mesh use is safe and feasible in emergencies with a low long-term complication rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04578561. www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Caecal volvulus and jejunostomy: challenging diagnostic

Caecal volvulus represent the 20–40% of colonic volvulus, being the second most frequent localization. It causes intestinal occlusion symptomatology (nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension). We present a case of 45-year-old women with feeding jejunostomy tube due to connatal anoxia. She arrives at A&E after 12 h of vomits and abdominal pain. The CT scan shows a small intestine dilation that suggested a small intestine volvulus. A laparotomy is performed showing a caecal volvulus, so ileo-cequectomy with primary anastomosis is performed. After several complications, she was discharged after 60 days of hospital stay. Caecal volvulus can be challenging to diagnose by clinic, because it can be hardly differenced from other intestinal occlusion causes. CT scan can be useful to reach the diagnostic and see signs of tissue suffering. In contrast with sigma volvulus, endoscopic treatment has not shown any benefit to solve it.

Incidence of Incisional Hernia After Emergency Subcostal Unilateral Laparotomy: Does Augmentation Prophylaxis Play a Role?

BACKGROUND

Few data are available about the frequency of incisional hernia in an emergency subcostal laparotomy. Our objective is to analyze the incidence of incisional hernia after emergency subcostal laparotomy and evaluate if prophylactic mesh could help prevent it.

METHODS

This study is a monocentric retrospective analysis following STROBE guideline statements of all patients who underwent an emergency subcostal laparotomy between January 2011 and July 2017 in our University Hospital. We compared complications and incidence of incisional hernia between patients who received sutures (Group S; N = 203) and patients with prophylactic onlay mesh (Group M; N = 80). A multivariate risk factor analysis of incisional hernia was performed. An incisional hernia-estimated risk calculator equation was created.

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients were analyzed. There were 80 patients in Group M and 203 in Group S. In short-term outcomes, length of surgery (213 ± 115 min vs 165 ± 73.3 min, P = 0.001) and hospital stay (16.4 ± 18.7 vs 11.6 days ± 13.4, P = 0.038) were longer in Group M. Long-term follow-up was conducted in 207 patients with a mean follow-up time of 39.3 ± 23 months. Incisional hernia was detected in 29 (19.1%) patients in Group S but in only two (3.8%) patients in Group M (P = 0.008). In the multivariate analysis, a risk factor analysis included wound infection (4.91 HR (2.12-11.4); P < 0.001), previous hernia repair (2.86 HR (1.24-6.61); P = 0.014), and shock (2.64 HR (1.01-6.93); P = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of incisional hernia after emergency subcostal laparotomy is high. Risk factors are wound infection, shock, and previous hernia surgery. The use of prophylactic mesh augmentation was safe and reduced the incidence of incisional hernia.