Martijn Depuydt1, Mathias Allaeys2, Luis Abreu de Carvalho2, Aude Vanlander2, Frederik Berrevoet2. 1. Department of General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. Martijn.Depuydt@ugent.be. 2. Department of General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias have an impact on patients' quality of life and on health care finances. Because of high recurrence rates despite mesh repair, the prevention of incisional hernias with prophylactic mesh reinforcement is currently a topic of interest. But only 15% of surgeons are implementing it, mainly because of fear for mesh complications and disbelief in the benefits. The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mesh in adult patients after midline laparotomy. METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL until 9/5/2020 for RCTs and cohort studies regarding mesh reinforcement versus primary suture closure of a midline laparotomy. The quality of the articles was analyzed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. Revman 5 was used to perform a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were found with a total of 1633 patients in the mesh reinforcement group and 1533 in the primary suture group. An odds ratio for incisional hernia incidence of 0.37 (95% CI = [0.30, 0.46], p < 0.01) with RCTs and of 0.15 (95% CI = [0.09,0.25], p < 0.01) in cohort studies was calculated. Seroma rate shows a significant odds ratio of 2.18 (95% CI = [1.45, 3.29], p < 0.01) in favor of primary suture. No increase was found regarding other complications. CONCLUSION: The evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh reinforcement is overwhelming with a significant reduction in incisional hernia rate, but implementation in daily clinical practice remains limited. Instead of putting patients at risk for incisional hernia formation and subsequent complications, surgeons should question their arguments why not to use mesh reinforcement, specifically in high-risk patients.
BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias have an impact on patients' quality of life and on health care finances. Because of high recurrence rates despite mesh repair, the prevention of incisional hernias with prophylactic mesh reinforcement is currently a topic of interest. But only 15% of surgeons are implementing it, mainly because of fear for mesh complications and disbelief in the benefits. The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mesh in adult patients after midline laparotomy. METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL until 9/5/2020 for RCTs and cohort studies regarding mesh reinforcement versus primary suture closure of a midline laparotomy. The quality of the articles was analyzed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. Revman 5 was used to perform a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were found with a total of 1633 patients in the mesh reinforcement group and 1533 in the primary suture group. An odds ratio for incisional hernia incidence of 0.37 (95% CI = [0.30, 0.46], p < 0.01) with RCTs and of 0.15 (95% CI = [0.09,0.25], p < 0.01) in cohort studies was calculated. Seroma rate shows a significant odds ratio of 2.18 (95% CI = [1.45, 3.29], p < 0.01) in favor of primary suture. No increase was found regarding other complications. CONCLUSION: The evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh reinforcement is overwhelming with a significant reduction in incisional hernia rate, but implementation in daily clinical practice remains limited. Instead of putting patients at risk for incisional hernia formation and subsequent complications, surgeons should question their arguments why not to use mesh reinforcement, specifically in high-risk patients.
Authors: An P Jairam; Lucas Timmermans; Hasan H Eker; Robert E G J M Pierik; David van Klaveren; Ewout W Steyerberg; Reinier Timman; Arie C van der Ham; Imro Dawson; Jan A Charbon; Christoph Schuhmacher; André Mihaljevic; Jakob R Izbicki; Panagiotis Fikatas; Philip Knebel; René H Fortelny; Gert-Jan Kleinrensink; Johan F Lange; Hans J Jeekel Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lucas Timmermans; Barry de Goede; Hasan H Eker; Bob J H van Kempen; Johannes Jeekel; Johan F Lange Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Jacobus W A Burger; Roland W Luijendijk; Wim C J Hop; Jens A Halm; Emiel G G Verdaasdonk; Johannes Jeekel Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: C Bali; J Papakostas; G Georgiou; G Kouvelos; S Avgos; E Arnaoutoglou; G Papadopoulos; M Matsagkas Journal: Hernia Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Jeroen Nieuwenhuizen; Hasan H Eker; Lucas Timmermans; Wim C J Hop; Gert-Jan Kleinrensink; Johannes Jeekel; Johan F Lange Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: F Pianka; A Werba; R Klotz; F Schuh; E Kalkum; P Probst; A Ramouz; E Khajeh; M W Büchler; J C Harnoss Journal: Hernia Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 2.920
Authors: Johanna Gruel; Eberhard Grambow; Malte Weinrich; Thomas Heller; Justus Groß; Matthias Leuchter; Mark Philipp Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 4.964