Assessment of the effectiveness of a polypropylene onlay mesh in the prevention of laparoscopic trocar-site incisional hernia in high-risk patients. A randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Trocar site incisional hernia (TSIH) is a common complication of laparoscopic surgery. In the scientific literature there are few descriptions of methods or tools for its prevention. The aim of this report was to assess the effectiveness and safety of a prophylactic measure designed to lower rates of TSIH. METHODS: A multicenter randomized double-blinded clinical trial was performed in high-risk patients (diabetes mellitus and/or age ≥ 70 years and/or BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and/or extended incision for specimen retrieval) who underwent either elective or emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were assigned to prophylactic onlay polypropylene mesh fixation (intervention) or to standard trocar closure (control). The main aim was to analyze the efficacy of the intervention, taking occurrence of TSIH as the primary outcome. Clinical and radiological follow up lasted at least one year after surgery. Secondary endpoints were technique-related complications (surgical site occurrences). RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients were randomized and finally 116 were analyzed (64 in the intervention arm and 52 in the control arm). Groups were homogeneous. Mean [SD] age, 65 [18] years; 86 (60.6%) were women. The cumulative TSIH incidence was lower in the intervention group although the differences did not reach statistical significance, assessed either radiologically (16 [25.4%] vs 17 [31.5%], p = 0.538) or clinically (9 [16.1%] vs 9 [20], p = 0.613). No differences in surgical site infection, hematoma or seroma were detected. Mean follow-up was 670 days (range 223-1294). CONCLUSION: Our results show that, when properly assessed, the overall TSIH incidence is extremely high. Although polypropylene onlay mesh placement is safe, it does not appear to be effective in reducing the TSIH incidence rate. Radiological evaluation may be more accurate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.org NCT03495557. Date of registration: April 12, 2018.

Prophylactic slowly resorbable mesh in midline laparotomy to limit incisional hernia incidence: the prospective 'Mesh Augmented Reinforcement of Abdominal Wall Suture Line (MARS)' cohort study protocol.

Background: Incisional hernia (IH) after abdominal surgery is a frequent surgical complication. Risk factors associated with IH are midline incisions, patients with an abdominal aneurysm of the aorta, and high BMI. Preventive measures include the use of the small-bites suture technique and/or placing a prophylactic mesh for reinforcement of the midline closure. Although recommended for high-risk patients, many surgeons are still reluctant to place a prophylactic mesh due to related complications. To counter these concerns, new synthetic resorbable meshes are being developed, such as the Deternia Self-Gripping Resorbable Mesh ("investigational device"). However, the effectiveness of this mesh in IH prevention has not been proved. Methods: The Mesh Augmented Reinforcement of Abdominal Wall Suture Line (MARS) study is a European, multicentre, prospective, single-arm study. A total of 120 patients scheduled for elective midline laparotomy, and for that reason at risk of developing IH, will be recruited in ~12 sites after informed consent. The sample size was estimated based on greater than 80% power, two-sided alpha of 0.05, an expected 12 month IH rate of 8% and a predefined performance goal of 18% (10% clinical margin). Midline incisions will be closed by the small bites closure technique with a minimum 4:1 suture-to-wound length ratio and reinforced by mesh placement in the retrorectus position. The primary outcome will be IH occurrence at 12-month postoperatively, evaluated both clinically and by ultrasound. Secondary outcomes will include mesh-related and postoperative complications, surgical characteristics, IH incidence at 2 and 3 years after surgery, and quality of life. Discussion: Currently, no conclusive evidence is available for synthetic resorbable meshes in a prophylactic setting to prevent IH. The MARS study will be the first prospective cohort study to investigate resorbable synthetic meshes and small bites closure to reduce IH incidence.

Short-term outcomes of a multicentre prospective study using a "visible" polyvinylidene fluoride onlay mesh for the prevention of midline incisional hernia.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic meshes in high-risk patients prevent incisional hernias, although there are still some concerns about the best layer to place them in, the type of fixation, the mesh material, the significance of the level of contamination, and surgical complications. We aimed to provide answers to these questions and information about how the implanted material behaves based on its visibility under magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHOD: This is a prospective multicentre observational cohort study. Preliminary results from the first 3 months are presented. We included general surgical patients who had at least two risk factors for developing an incisional hernia. Multivariate logistic regression was used. A polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mesh loaded with iron particles was used in an onlay position. MRIs were performed 6 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: Between July 2016 and June 2022, 185 patients were enrolled in the study. Surgery was emergent in 30.3% of cases, contaminated in 10.7% and dirty in 11.8%. A total of 5.6% of cases had postoperative wound infections, with the requirement of stoma being the only significant risk factor (OR = 7.59, p = 0.03). The formation of a seroma at 6 weeks detected by MRI, was associated with body mass index (OR = 1.13, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The prophylactic use of onlay PVDF mesh in midline laparotomies in high-risk patients was safe and effective in the short term, regardless of the type of surgery or the level of contamination. MRI allowed us to detect asymptomatic seromas during the early process of integration. STUDY REGISTRATION:  This protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03105895).

Prophylactic Use of Biologic Mesh in Ileal Conduit (PUBMIC): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: We assessed the effect of prophylactic biologic mesh on parastomal hernia (PSH) development in patients undergoing cystectomy and ileal conduit (IC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, controlled trial (NCT02439060) included 146 patients who underwent cystectomy and IC at the University of Southern California between 2015 and 2021. Follow-ups were physical exam and CT every 4 to 6 months up to 2 years. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive FlexHD prophylactic biological mesh using sublay intraperitoneal technique vs standard IC. The primary end point was time to radiological PSH, and secondary outcomes included clinical PSH with/without surgical intervention and mesh-related complications. RESULTS: The 2 arms were similar in terms of baseline clinical features. All surgeries and mesh placements were performed without any intraoperative complications. Median operative time was 31 minutes longer in patients who received mesh, yet with no statistically significant difference (363 vs 332 minutes, P = .16). With a median follow-up of 24 months, radiological and clinical PSHs were detected in 37 (18 mesh recipients vs 19 controls) and 16 (8 subjects in both arms) patients, with a median time to radiological and clinical PSH of 8.3 and 15.5 months, respectively. No definite mesh-related adverse events were reported. Five patients (3 in the mesh and 2 in the control arm) required surgical PSH repair. Radiological PSH-free survival rates in the mesh and control groups were 74% vs 75% at 1 year and 69% vs 62% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of biologic mesh at the time of IC construction is safe without significant protective effects within 2 years following surgery.

Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement vs. primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): long-term outcomes of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Background: Incisional hernia occurs approximately in 40% of high-risk patients after midline laparotomy. Prophylactic mesh placement has shown promising results, but long-term outcomes are needed. The present study aimed to assess the long-term incisional hernia rates of the previously conducted PRIMA trial with radiological follow-up. Methods: In the PRIMA trial, patients with increased risk of incisional hernia formation (AAA or BMI ≥27 kg/m2) were randomised in a 1:2:2 ratio to primary suture, onlay mesh or sublay mesh closure in three different countries in eleven institutions. Incisional hernia during follow-up was diagnosed by any of: CT, ultrasound and physical examination, or during surgery. Assessors and patients were blinded until 2-year follow-up. Time-to-event analysis according to intention-to-treat principle was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazard models. Trial registration: NCT00761475 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Findings: Between 2009 and 2012, 480 patients were randomized: 107 primary suture, 188 onlay mesh and 185 sublay mesh. Five-year incisional hernia rates were 53.4% (95% CI: 40.4-64.8), 24.7% (95% CI: 12.7-38.8), 29.8% (95% CI: 17.9-42.6), respectively. Compared to primary suture, onlay mesh (HR: 0.390, 95% CI: 0.248-0.614, p < 0.001) and sublay mesh (HR: 0.485, 95% CI: 0.309-0.761, p = 0.002) were associated with a significantly lower risk of incisional hernia development. Interpretation: Prophylactic mesh placement remained effective in reducing incisional hernia occurrence after midline laparotomy in high-risk patients during long-term follow-up. Hernia rates in the primary suture group were higher than previously anticipated. Funding: B. Braun.

How often is prophylactic parastomal mesh placement performed after rectal resection without sphincter preservation? An analysis of German nationwide hospital discharge data among 41,697 patients.

PURPOSE: The European Hernia Society guidelines of parastomal hernias, published in 2017, strongly recommend prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon the construction of a permanent end colostomy to reduce the incidence of parastomal hernias. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of the guidelines in Germany. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicentric analysis conducted in December 2022 at the University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel. Anonymous data on rectal resection without sphincter preservation in the period 2010-2020 were extracted from the German nationwide hospital discharge data set. Individuals with a hernia and < 18 years old were excluded. Another exclusion criterion was a performed colectomy or proctocolectomy with an ileoanal pouch and placement of an absorbable mesh. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of prophylactic parastomal mesh placement following rectal resection without sphincter preservation in Germany. Cases reporting both non-absorbable mesh placement and rectal resection without sphincter preservation were considered prophylactic mesh insertions. RESULTS: A total of 41,697 patients received a rectal resection without sphincter preservation and without non-absorbable mesh placement. Among these individuals, 27,089 were male and 14,608 were female. The rate of reoperations (3.1%) and the length of hospital stay (25.3 days ± 19.32) remained almost constant during these 10 years. The rate of prophylactic mesh placement was increasing from 0.2% (n = 8) in 2010 to 6.4% (n = 198) in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, only the minority of patients who have undergone rectal resection without sphincter preservation receive prophylactic mesh insertion.

[Incisional hernias: epidemiology, evidence and guidelines]. / Narbenhernien: Epidemiologie, Evidenz und Leitlinien.

BACKGROUND: From an epidemiological point of view, one third of the population in industrialized countries will undergo abdominal surgery during their lifetime. Depending on the degree of patient-related and procedure-related risks, the occurrence of incisional hernias is associated in a range of up to 30% at 2­year follow-up and even up to 60% at 5 years. In addition to influencing comorbidities, the type of surgical approach and closure technique are of critical importance. OBJECTIVE: To present a descriptive evidence-based recommendation for abdominal wall closure and prophylactic mesh augmentation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A concise summary was prepared incorporating the current literature and existing guidelines. RESULTS: According to recent studies the recognized risk for the occurrence of incisional hernias in the presence of obesity and abdominal aortic diseases also applies to patients undergoing colorectal surgery and the presence of diastasis recti abdominis. Based on high-level published data, the short stitch technique for midline laparotomy in the elective setting has a high level of evidence to be a standard procedure. Patients with an increased risk profile should receive prophylactic mesh reinforcement, either onlay or sublay, in addition to the short stitch technique. In emergency laparotomy, the individual risk of infection with respect to the closure technique used must be included. CONCLUSION: The avoidance of incisional hernias is primarily achieved by the minimally invasive access for laparoscopy. For closure of the most commonly used midline approach, the short stitch technique and, in the case of existing risk factors, additionally mesh augmentation are recommended.

Prevention of incisional hernia after kidney transplantation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a common complication after kidney transplantation with an incidence of 1.6-18%. Concerning non-transplant patients, a recently published meta-analysis describes a reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia of up to 85% due to prophylactic mesh replacement in elective, midline laparotomy. The aim of our study is to show a reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia after kidney transplantation with minimal risk for complication. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing time to incisional hernia over a period of 24 months between patients undergoing kidney transplantation and standardized abdominal closure with or without prophylactic placement of ProGrip™ (Medtronic, Fridley, MN, USA) mesh in an onlay position. As we believe that the mesh intervention is superior to the standard procedure in reducing the incidence of hernia, this is a superiority trial. DISCUSSION: The high risk for developing incisional hernia following kidney transplantation might be reduced by prophylactic mesh placement. ProGrip™ mesh features polylactic acid (PLA) microgrips that provide immediate, strong and uniform fixation. The use of this mesh combines the effectiveness demonstrated by the macropore propylene meshes in the treatment of incisional hernias, a high simplicity of use provided by its capacity for self-fixation that does not increase significantly surgery time, and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04794582. Registered on 08 March 2021. Protocol version 2.0. (02-18-2021).

Encuesta nacional a unidades de cirugía colorrectal sobre el cierre de pared abdominal / National survey of colorectal surgery units on abdominal wall closure

Introducción: El objetivo de este estudio es valorar el estado actual y conocimiento de los cirujanos colorrectales españoles en el cierre de pared abdominal. Métodos: Se realizó un cuestionario de 25 preguntas cerradas de respuesta única utilizando un software específico para encuestas online que se distribuyó a cirujanos que se dedican, principalmente, a la cirugía colorrectal en su servicio o pertenecen a una Unidad de Cirugía Colorrectal. Resultados: Respondieron la encuesta 53 cirujanos. La mayoría prefiere el cierre de la laparotomía media con una sutura continua (96,23%) de monofilamento de absorción muy lenta (67,92%) en un solo plano (81,13%). Los puntos en masa, los sistemas de retención y las suturas loop siguen utilizándose. El calibre de sutura habitualmente más utilizado fue del 1 USP (United States Pharmacopeia) (58,49%). La aguja más utilizada es de cuerpo cilíndrico y punta trocar. Solo el 50% realiza habitualmente cierre de la pared tras colocación de un trocar igual o mayor de 10mm. Prácticamente todos conocen la regla del 4:1 y creen que se debe aplicar, pero la técnica de puntos cortos no se realiza. El 50% no colocaría nunca una prótesis profiláctica. El cierre lo suele realizar el mismo cirujano que ha llevado a cabo todo el procedimiento. Uno de cada 5 confiesa desconocer la tasa de hernias incisionales de su unidad. Conclusiones: Se evidencia una falta de consenso y conocimientos básicos en cuanto a los aspectos técnicos de cierre y a la prevención de la aparición de hernias incisionales. Parece aceptado el uso de sutura continua, en un solo plano, con sutura monofilamento de reabsorción lenta. (AU)

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to assess the current status and knowledge of the Spanish colorectal surgeons on the wall closure. Methods: A single answer questionnaire of 25 closed questions was conducted using specific software for online surveys that was distributed to a cohort of colorectal surgeons. Results: 53 surgeons replied to the survey. The vast majority prefer a closure of the midlaparotomy with a very slow absorbing monofilament (67,92%) continuous suture (96,23%) in a single plane (81,13%). Mass stitches, retention systems, and loop sutures continue to be used. The most commonly used suture gauge was USP 1 (United States Pharmacopeia) (58,49%). The most commonly used needle is with a cylindrical body and a trocar tip. Only 50%, routinely perform wall closure after placement of a trocar equal to or greater than 10mm. Almost everyone knows the 4: 1 rule and thinks it should be applied, but the small bites technique is not performed. 50% would never place a prophylactic prosthesis. The closure is usually performed by the same surgeon who has performed the entire procedure. One out of five confesses not knowing the rate of incisional hernias in his unit. Conclusion: There is a lack of consensus and basic knowledge regarding the technical aspects of closure and the prevention of the appearance of incisional hernias. The use of slow absorbing monofilament continuous suture in a single plane seems well accepted. (AU)

National survey of colorectal surgery units on abdominal wall closure.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to assess the current status and knowledge of the Spanish colorectal surgeons on the wall closure. METHODS: A single answer questionnaire of 25 closed questions was conducted using specific software for online surveys that was distributed to a cohort of colorectal surgeons. RESULTS: 53 surgeons replied to the survey. The vast majority prefer a closure of the midlaparotomy with a very slow absorbing monofilament (67.92%) continuous suture (96.23%) in a single plane (81.13%). Mass stitches, retention systems, and loop sutures continue to be used. The most commonly used suture gauge was USP 1 (United States Pharmacopeia) (58.49%). The most commonly used needle is with a cylindrical body and a trocar tip. Only 50%, routinely perform wall closure after placement of a trocar equal to or greater than 10 mm. Almost everyone knows the 4:1 rule and thinks it should be applied, but the small bites technique is not performed. 50% would never place a prophylactic prosthesis. The closure is usually performed by the same surgeon who has performed the entire procedure. One out of five confesses not knowing the rate of incisional hernias in his unit. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of consensus and basic knowledge regarding the technical aspects of closure and the prevention of the appearance of incisional hernias. The use of slow absorbing monofilament continuous suture in a single plane seems well accepted.

The effect of prophylactic mesh implantation on the development of incisional hernias in patients with elevated BMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement for midline incisional hernia prevention: systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication after abdominal surgery. Prevention of IH is matter of intense research. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) has been shown to be promising in the minimization of IH risk after elective midline laparotomy. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PMR vs. primary suture closure (PSC). Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (MD) were used as pooled effect size measures whereas 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were used to assess relative inference. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (2332 patients) were included. Overall, 1280 (54.9%) underwent PMR while 1052 (45.1%) PSC. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 12 to 67 months. The incidence of IH was reduced for PMR vs. PSC (13.4% vs. 27.5%). The estimated pooled IH RR for PMR vs. PSC is 0.38 (95% CI 0.24-0.58; p < 0.001). Stratified subgroup analysis according to mesh location shows a risk reduction for intraperitoneal (RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.48-0.89), preperitoneal (RR = 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.81), retromuscular (RR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.24-0.92) and onlay (RR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.51) compared to PSC. The seroma RR was higher for PMR (RR = 2.05; p = 0.0008). No differences were found for hematoma (RR = 1.49; p = 0.34), surgical site infection (SSI) (RR = 1.17; p = 0.38), operative time (OT) (MD = 0.27; p = 0.413), and hospital length of stay (HLOS) (MD = -0.03; p = 0.237). CONCLUSIONS: PMR seems effective in reducing the risk of IH after elective midline laparotomy compared to PSC in the medium-term follow-up. While the risk of postoperative seroma appears higher for PMR, hematoma, SSI, HLOS and OT seems comparable.

Prophylactic onlay mesh at emergency laparotomy: promising early outcomes with long-acting synthetic resorbable mesh.

BACKGROUND: Careful surgical strategy is paramount in balancing the prevention of fascial dehiscence, incisional hernia (IH) and fear of additional mesh-related wound complications post-laparotomy. This study aims to review early outcomes of patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy with prophylactic TIGR® mesh, used to reduce early fascial dehiscence and potential subsequent IH. METHOD: A retrospective, ethically approved review of 24 consecutive patients undergoing prophylactic TIGR® mesh placement during emergency laparotomies by a single surgeon between January 2017 and June 2021 at a University Hospital. A standardized approach included onlay positioning of the mesh, small-bite fascial closure, and a wound bundle. We recorded patient demographics, operative indications, findings, degree of peritonitis, postoperative complications, and mortality. RESULT: The study included 24 patients; 16/24 (66.6%) were female and median age was 72.5 (range 31-86); 14/24 patients were ASA grade III or greater; 4/24 patients (16.6%) developed six complications and 3/6 occurred in a single patient. Complications included subphrenic abscess, seroma, intrabdominal hematoma, enterocutaneous fistula leading to deep wound infection and small bowel perforation. Five (20.8%) patients died in hospital; central venous catheter sepsis (n = 1), fungal septicaemia (n = 1) and multiorgan failure (n = 3). Surgical site infection and seroma rates were low, occurring in 2/24 patients (4% each). CONCLUSION: This study has identified that prophylactic onlay mesh in patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy is not associated with significant wound infection or seroma when used with an active wound bundle. The wider use of TIGR® to prevent fascial dehiscence and potential long-term IH prevention should be considered.

Prophylactic mesh placement in emergency midline laparotomy for intestinal perforation peritonitis: An appeal for caution.

Prophylactic mesh placement (PMP) is increasingly being used to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia after routine and emergency midline laparotomy (EML). However, such studies are not available for EMLs done solely for intestinal perforation. Patients who underwent non-absorbable PMP during EML for intestinal perforation (Group A, 15 patients) were compared with those who had a conventional abdominal wall closure (Group B, 20 patients). The incidence of wound dehiscence was significantly higher in Group A, while surgical site infection (SSI), and incisional hernia were similar in both groups. Mesh explantation was needed in half the cases. A prophylactically placed non-absorbable mesh in patients undergoing EML for intestinal perforation is associated with significantly higher rates of wound dehiscence and of mesh explantation and therefore, routine use of such a mesh appears not to be justified.

A Biomechanical Analysis of Prophylactic Mesh Reinforced Porcine Laparotomy Incisions.

INTRODUCTION: Research indicates that prophylactic mesh may help prevent incisional hernia after laparotomy, but best practice patterns in these situations are still evolving. Here, we compare the failure loads (FLs) and biomechanical stiffness (BMS) of 35 porcine abdominal wall laparotomy incisions reinforced with meshes of various widths and fixation distances using biomechanical testing. METHODS: In each specimen, a 10-cm incision was made and closed using continuous 1-0 Maxon suture. Specimens were randomized to mesh width (none, 2.5 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm, 6 cm, 8 cm) and tack separation (1.5 cm, 2 cm apart) and the meshes secured in an onlay fashion. Cyclic loads oscillating from 15 N to 140 N were applied to simulate abdominal wall stress, and the specimens subsequently loaded to failure. FLs (N) and BMS (N/mm) were comparatively analyzed. RESULTS: All specimens failed via suture pull-through. FLs and BMS were lowest in specimens with suture-only (421.43 N; 11.69 N/mm). FLs and BMS were significantly higher in 4-cm mesh specimens (567.51 N) than those with suture, 2.5-cm, and 3.0-cm mesh (all P < 0.05). FLs in specimens with a greater number of tacks were consistently higher in meshes of similar sizes, although these did not reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: A 4-cm mesh reenforcement was superior to suture-only and smaller meshes at preserving strength in laparotomy closure in a porcine model but larger meshes (6 cm, 8 cm) did not provide an additional benefit. Meshes with more fixation points may be advantageous, but additional data are needed to make definitive conclusions.

Is prophylactic mesh closure effective to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy in colorectal surgery?

BACKGROUND: few studies have studied prophylactic mesh closure after laparotomy for colorectal surgery. METHODS: a retrospective cohort study was performed to compare patients with and without prophylactic mesh closure after open colorectal surgery. RESULTS: 309 patients were included from January 2014 to December 2016. Prophylactic mesh closure was performed in 98 patients (31.7%). After a mean follow-up of 21.7 months, incisional hernia was developed in 9 and 54 patients in the group with and without mesh respectively (9.2% vs. 25.7%, OR = 0.3, p = 0.001). In the multivariate Cox model prophylactic mesh closure was associated with a protective effect on incisional hernia development with a Hazard Ratio of 0.46 (p = 0.033). Surgical site infection was more frequent in the mesh group (19.4% vs. 9.5%, OR = 2.3, p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: prophylactic mesh closure is effective to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia after colorectal surgery.

Prevention of Incisional Hernia after Open Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Most hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) procedures are still performed through open approach. Incisional hernia (IH) is one of the most common complications after open surgery. To date, published data on IH after HPB surgery are scarce; therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the current evidence regarding incidence, risk factors, and prevention. METHODS: Medline/PubMed (1946-2020), EMBASE (1947-2020), and the Cochrane library (1995-2020) were searched for studies on IH in open HPB surgery. Animal studies, editorials, letters, reviews, comments, short case series and liver transplant, laparoscopic, or robotic procedures were excluded. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020163296). RESULTS: A total of 5,079 articles were retrieved. Eight studies were finally included for the analysis. The incidence of IH after HPB surgery ranges from 7.7% to 38.8%. The identified risk factors were body mass index, surgical site infection, ascites, Mercedes or reversed T incisions, and previous IH. Prophylactic mesh might be safe and effective. CONCLUSIONS: IH after open HPB surgery is still an important matter. Some of the risk factors are specific for the HPB operations and the incision type should be carefully considered. Randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the role of prophylactic mesh after HPB operations.

Implementing a protocol to prevent incisional hernia in high-risk patients: a mesh is a powerful tool.

PURPOSE: The small bites (SB) technique for closure of elective midline laparotomies (EMLs) and a prophylactic mesh (PM) in high-risk patients are suggested by the guidelines to prevent incisional hernias (IHs) and fascial dehiscence (FD). Our aim was to implement a protocol combining both the techniques and to analyze its outcomes. METHODS: Prospective data of all EMLs were collected for 2 years. Results were analyzed at 1 month and during follow-up. The incidence of HI and FD was compared by groups (M = Mesh vs. S = suture) and by subgroups depending on using SB. RESULTS: A lower number of FD appeared in the M group (OR 0.0692; 95% CI 0.008-0.56; P = 0.01) in 197 operations. After a mean follow-up of 29.23 months (N = 163; min. 6 months), with a lower frequency of IH in M group (OR 0.769; 95% CI 0.65-0.91; P < 0.0001). (33) The observed differences persisted after a propensity matching score: FD (OR 0.355; 95% CI 0.255-0.494; P < 0.0001) and IH (OR 0.394; 95% CI 0.24-0.61; P < 0.0001). On comparing suturing techniques by subgroups, both mesh subgroups had better outcomes. PM was the main factor related to the reduction of IH (HR 11.794; 95% CI 4.29-32.39; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Following the protocol using PM and SB showed a lower rate of FD and HI. A PM is safe and effective for the prevention of both HI and FD after MLE, regardless of the closure technique used.