F Pianka1,2, A Werba3,4, R Klotz3,4, F Schuh3,4, E Kalkum4, P Probst4,5, A Ramouz3, E Khajeh3, M W Büchler3,4, J C Harnoss3,4. 1. Department of General-, Visceral- and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. frank.pianka@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 2. Study Center of the German Surgical Society, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. frank.pianka@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 3. Department of General-, Visceral- and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 420, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Study Center of the German Surgical Society, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Thurgau, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a common complication after midline laparotomy. In certain risk profiles incidences can reach up to 70%. Large RCTs showed a positive effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) in high-risk populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement on incisional hernia reduction in obese patients after midline laparotomies. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search in Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL was conducted. RCTs investigating PMR in patients with a BMI ≥ 27 reporting incisional hernia as primary outcome were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence was rated according to the GRADE Working Group grading of evidence. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. RESULTS: Out of 2298 articles found by a systematic literature search, five RCTs with 1136 patients were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia when comparing PMR with primary suture (odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.34-1.01, p = 0.06, GRADE: low). Meta-analyses of seroma formation (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.72-3.65; p = 0.24, GRADE: low) and surgical site infections (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.72-3.22, p = 0.28, GRADE: moderate) showed no significant differences as well as subgroup analyses for BMI ≥ 40 and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a significant reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement used in patients with elevated BMI. These results stand in contrast to the current recommendation for hernia prevention in obese patients.
BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a common complication after midline laparotomy. In certain risk profiles incidences can reach up to 70%. Large RCTs showed a positive effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) in high-risk populations. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement on incisional hernia reduction in obese patients after midline laparotomies. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search in Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL was conducted. RCTs investigating PMR in patients with a BMI ≥ 27 reporting incisional hernia as primary outcome were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence was rated according to the GRADE Working Group grading of evidence. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. RESULTS: Out of 2298 articles found by a systematic literature search, five RCTs with 1136 patients were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia when comparing PMR with primary suture (odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.34-1.01, p = 0.06, GRADE: low). Meta-analyses of seroma formation (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.72-3.65; p = 0.24, GRADE: low) and surgical site infections (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.72-3.22, p = 0.28, GRADE: moderate) showed no significant differences as well as subgroup analyses for BMI ≥ 40 and length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a significant reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement used in patients with elevated BMI. These results stand in contrast to the current recommendation for hernia prevention in obese 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: Christoph M Seiler; Thomas Bruckner; Markus K Diener; Armine Papyan; Henriette Golcher; Christoph Seidlmayer; Annette Franck; Meinhard Kieser; Markus W Büchler; Hanns-Peter Knaebel Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jeffrey Lisiecki; Jacob Rinkinen; Oluwatobi Eboda; Jonathan Peterson; Sara De La Rosa; Shailesh Agarwal; Justin Dimick; Oliver A Varban; Paul S Cederna; Stewart C Wang; Benjamin Levi Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 3.411