RETRACTED: Preoperative chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine antisepsis for preventing surgical site infection: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor of the Journal. The retraction has been made because the Editor has been informed that a similar article containing the same research was submitted to another journal by other authors. The authors have admitted errors in drafting and submitting the paper and apologise for the mistakes.

Mesh reinforcement for the prevention of incisional hernia formation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: European Hernia Society guidelines suggested that the evidence of mesh augmentation for the prevention of incisional hernia (IH) was weak. In addition, previous systematic reviews seldom focused on quality of life and cost-effectiveness related to mesh placement. Therefore, an updated meta-analysis was performed to clarify quality of life, cost-effectiveness, the safety, and effectiveness of mesh reinforcement in preventing the incidence of IH. METHODS: Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane library were searched from the inception to May 2016 without language limitation for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which explored mesh reinforcement for the prevention of IH in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs totaling 1661 patients (958 in mesh, 703 in nonmesh) were included in our study. Compared with nonmesh, mesh reinforcement can effectively decrease the incidence of IH (relative risk: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.09-0.42). Besides, mesh placement was associated with improved quality of life, a higher rate of seroma (relative risk: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.13-2.37), and longer operating time (mean difference: 17.62; 95% CI: 1.44-33.80). No difference can be found between both groups in postoperative overall morbidity, systemic postoperative morbidity, wound-related morbidity, surgical site infection, hematoma, wound disruption, postoperative mortality, and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic mesh reinforcement may be effective and safe to prevent the formation of IH after abdominal surgery, without impairing quality of life. Thus, preventive mesh should be routinely recommended in high-risk patients.

Drain versus no-drain after gastrectomy for patients with advanced gastric cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A wide range of outcomes are seen in the literature on the use of drains after gastrectomy. However, there is little consensus on whether or not drains are beneficial in patients with gastric cancer. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate drain versus no-drain after gastrectomy by using evidence from available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, VIP, and CNKI for the terms 'gastric cancer', 'gastrectomy' and 'drains' used in combination with the medical subject headings. RCTs were considered. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0 software. RESULTS: Four RCTs involving 438 patients were included. There were no differences between the drain and no-drain groups in the incidence of wound infection, postoperative pulmonary infection, intra-abdominal abscess, mortality, number of postoperative days until passing of flatus and initiation of soft diet. Both the incidence of postoperative complications and the length of hospital stay for patients in the no-drain group after gastrectomy were lower than in the drain group (p = 0.03, 95% CI 0.32, 0.95) and (p = 0.009, 95% CI -1.21, -0.18), respectively. CONCLUSION: Avoiding the use of abdominal drains may reduce drain-related complications and shorten hospital stay after gastrectomy.