PURPOSE: Incisional hernia is a common long-term complication after laparotomy. This study investigated whether prophylactic mesh reinforcement of laparotomy reduced the rate of incisional hernia, with emphasis on trial design and quality. METHODS: A systematic review of published literature was performed for studies comparing incisional hernia presence following conventional closure or prophylactic mesh reinforcement. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the Jadad score and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary endpoint was incisional hernia, assessed by meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven studies [four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three prospective trials] included 588 patients; 262 received mesh reinforcement. All studies included elective patients at high risk of incisional hernia. Six incorporated a polypropylene mesh and one a biologic mesh. Four studies were judged high quality by NOS and two of four RCTs were at low risk of bias, although overall outcome assessment from all studies was either poor or mediocre. Mesh significantly reduced the rate of incisional hernia [odds ratio (OR) 0.15, p < 0.001]; the same effect was seen in RCTs only (OR 0.17, p < 0.001). A borderline increase of seroma seen with a fixed effect model (OR 1.82, p = 0.050) was not seen with a random effect model (OR 1.86, p = 0.210, I (2) = 45 %). CONCLUSION: Mesh reinforcement of laparotomy significantly reduced the rate of incisional hernia in high-risk patients. However, poor assessment of secondary outcomes limits applicability; routine placement in all patients cannot yet be recommended. More evidence regarding the rates of adverse events, cost-benefits and quality of life are needed.
PURPOSE: Incisional hernia is a common long-term complication after laparotomy. This study investigated whether prophylactic mesh reinforcement of laparotomy reduced the rate of incisional hernia, with emphasis on trial design and quality. METHODS: A systematic review of published literature was performed for studies comparing incisional hernia presence following conventional closure or prophylactic mesh reinforcement. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the Jadad score and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary endpoint was incisional hernia, assessed by meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven studies [four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three prospective trials] included 588 patients; 262 received mesh reinforcement. All studies included elective patients at high risk of incisional hernia. Six incorporated a polypropylene mesh and one a biologic mesh. Four studies were judged high quality by NOS and two of four RCTs were at low risk of bias, although overall outcome assessment from all studies was either poor or mediocre. Mesh significantly reduced the rate of incisional hernia [odds ratio (OR) 0.15, p < 0.001]; the same effect was seen in RCTs only (OR 0.17, p < 0.001). A borderline increase of seroma seen with a fixed effect model (OR 1.82, p = 0.050) was not seen with a random effect model (OR 1.86, p = 0.210, I (2) = 45 %). CONCLUSION: Mesh reinforcement of laparotomy significantly reduced the rate of incisional hernia in high-risk patients. However, poor assessment of secondary outcomes limits applicability; routine placement in all patients cannot yet be recommended. More evidence regarding the rates of adverse events, cost-benefits and quality of life are needed.
Authors: Manuel López-Cano; Manel Armengol; Maria Teresa Quiles; Alex Biel; Janice Velasco; Pere Huguet; Aleix Mestre; Lluís María Delgado; Francesc Xavier Gil; Maria Antonia Arbós Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Lisa Hartling; Maria Ospina; Yuanyuan Liang; Donna M Dryden; Nicola Hooton; Jennifer Krebs Seida; Terry P Klassen Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-10-19
Authors: M P Feng; R B Baucom; K K Broman; D A Harris; M D Holzman; L-C Huang; J L Kaiser; S L Kavalukas; O O Oyefule; S E Phillips; B K Poulose; R A Pierce Journal: Hernia Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: A Balaphas; N C Buchs; S P Naiken; M E Hagen; A Zawodnik; M K Jung; G Varnay; L H Bühler; P Morel Journal: Hernia Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Philippe Brosi; Philippe M Glauser; Benjamin Speich; Samuel A Käser; Christoph A Maurer Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.352