A Bravo-Salva1,2, N Argudo-Aguirre1,2, A M González-Castillo1,3, E Membrilla-Fernandez1,4, J J Sancho-Insenser1,4, L Grande-Posa1,4, M Pera-Román1,4, J A Pereira-Rodríguez5,6. 1. Servicio de Cirugía General Y del Aparato Digestivo, Parc de Salut Mar, Hospital del Mar, P. Marítim 23-25, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Departament de Ciències, Experimentals I de La Salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Dr. Aiguader 88, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Departament de Ciències Morfològiques, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Campus Bellaterra, 08193, Cerdanyola del Vallès - Barcelona, Spain. 4. Departament de Cirurgia, Vall d'Hebrón, Unitat Departamental Parc de Salut Mar, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebrón 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Servicio de Cirugía General Y del Aparato Digestivo, Parc de Salut Mar, Hospital del Mar, P. Marítim 23-25, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. jose.pereira@upf.edu. 6. Departament de Ciències, Experimentals I de La Salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Dr. Aiguader 88, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. jose.pereira@upf.edu.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contaminated surgery and long-term follow up; Emergency Surgery; Hernia prevention; Prophylactic mesh
Authors: Zachary M Borab; Sameer Shakir; Michael A Lanni; Michael G Tecce; John MacDonald; William W Hope; John P Fischer Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Mohammed R Moussavian; Jochen Schuld; Daniel Dauer; Christoph Justinger; Otto Kollmar; Martin K Schilling; Sven Richter Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: A Mingoli; A Puggioni; G Sgarzini; G Luciani; F Corzani; F Ciccarone; E Baldassarre; C Modini Journal: Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 1999 Aug-Sep
Authors: N J Slater; A Montgomery; F Berrevoet; A M Carbonell; A Chang; M Franklin; K W Kercher; B J Lammers; E Parra-Davilla; S Roll; S Towfigh; E van Geffen; J Conze; H van Goor Journal: Hernia Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 4.739
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: Nuria Argudo; José A Pereira; Juan J Sancho; Estela Membrilla; M José Pons; Luis Grande Journal: Surgery Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Filip E Muysoms; Olivier Detry; Tijl Vierendeels; Marc Huyghe; Marc Miserez; Martin Ruppert; Tim Tollens; Jean-Olivier Defraigne; Frederik Berrevoet Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 12.969