C Stabilini1, M A Garcia-Urena2, F Berrevoet3, D Cuccurullo4, S Capoccia Giovannini1, M Dajko5, L Rossi1, K Decaestecker6, M López Cano7,8. 1. Department of Surgery (DiSC), University of Genoa, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences, Francisco de Vitoria University, Henares University Hospital, Carretera Pozuelo-Majadahonda km 1,8, 28223, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid, Spain. magurena@gmail.com. 3. Department of General and Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 4. Department of Surgery, Ospedale Monaldi-Azienda Ospedaliera dei Colli, Naples, Italy. 5. Gastroenterology and Clinical Oncology Area, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 7. Abdominal Wall Surgery Unit, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 8. Vall d'Hebron Research Institute General and Gastrointestinal Surgery Research Group, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) across various type of incisions in colorectal surgery (CS) creating a map of evidence to define research trends, gaps and areas of future interest. METHODS: Systematic review of PubMed and Scopus from 2010 onwards. Studies included both open (OS) and laparoscopic (LS). The primary outcome was incidence of IH 12 months after index procedure, secondary outcomes were the study features and their influence on reported proportion of IH. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportions. Meta-regression models were performed to explore heterogeneity. RESULTS: Ninetyone studies were included reporting 6473 IH. The pooled proportions of IH for OS were 0.35 (95% CI 0.27-0.44) I2 0% in midline laparotomies and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.07), I2 52% for off-midline. In case of LS the pooled proportion of IH for midline extraction sites were 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.16), I2 58% and 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), I2 86% in case of off-midline. In Port-site IH was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.04), I2 82%, and for single incision surgery (SILS) of 0.06-95% CI 0.02-0.15, I2 81%. In case of stoma reversal sites was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.24). CONCLUSION: Midline laparotomies and stoma reversal sites are at high risk for IH and should be considered in research of preventive strategies of closure. After laparoscopic approach IH happens mainly by extraction sites incisions specially midline and also represent an important area of analysis.
PURPOSE: To assess the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) across various type of incisions in colorectal surgery (CS) creating a map of evidence to define research trends, gaps and areas of future interest. METHODS: Systematic review of PubMed and Scopus from 2010 onwards. Studies included both open (OS) and laparoscopic (LS). The primary outcome was incidence of IH 12 months after index procedure, secondary outcomes were the study features and their influence on reported proportion of IH. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportions. Meta-regression models were performed to explore heterogeneity. RESULTS: Ninetyone studies were included reporting 6473 IH. The pooled proportions of IH for OS were 0.35 (95% CI 0.27-0.44) I2 0% in midline laparotomies and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.07), I2 52% for off-midline. In case of LS the pooled proportion of IH for midline extraction sites were 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.16), I2 58% and 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), I2 86% in case of off-midline. In Port-site IH was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.04), I2 82%, and for single incision surgery (SILS) of 0.06-95% CI 0.02-0.15, I2 81%. In case of stoma reversal sites was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.24). CONCLUSION: Midline laparotomies and stoma reversal sites are at high risk for IH and should be considered in research of preventive strategies of closure. After laparoscopic approach IH happens mainly by extraction sites incisions specially midline and also represent an important area of analysis.
Authors: Eva B Deerenberg; Joris J Harlaar; Ewout W Steyerberg; Harold E Lont; Helena C van Doorn; Joos Heisterkamp; Bas Pl Wijnhoven; Willem R Schouten; Huib A Cense; Hein Bac Stockmann; Frits J Berends; F Paul Hlj Dijkhuizen; Roy S Dwarkasing; An P Jairam; Gabrielle H van Ramshorst; Gert-Jan Kleinrensink; Johannes Jeekel; Johan F Lange Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rebeccah B Baucom; Jenny Ousley; Gloria B Beveridge; Sharon E Phillips; Richard A Pierce; Michael D Holzman; Kenneth W Sharp; William H Nealon; Benjamin K Poulose Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: F E Muysoms; S A Antoniou; K Bury; G Campanelli; J Conze; D Cuccurullo; A C de Beaux; E B Deerenberg; B East; R H Fortelny; J-F Gillion; N A Henriksen; L Israelsson; A Jairam; A Jänes; J Jeekel; M López-Cano; M Miserez; S Morales-Conde; D L Sanders; M P Simons; M Śmietański; L Venclauskas; F Berrevoet Journal: Hernia Date: 2015-01-25 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: Gabriëlle H van Ramshorst; Jeroen Nieuwenhuizen; Wim C J Hop; Pauline Arends; Johan Boom; Johannes Jeekel; Johan F Lange Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Allard S Timmer; Jeroen J M Claessen; Irene M Brouwer de Koning; Suzanne M Haenen; Eric J T Belt; Antonius J N M Bastiaansen; Emiel G G Verdaasdonk; Carole P Wolffenbuttel; Wilhelmina H Schreurs; Werner A Draaisma; Marja A Boermeester Journal: Hernia Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 2.920