Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation.
Bioabsorbable mesh
Biosynthetic mesh
Incisional hernia
Prophylaxis
Journal
Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery
ISSN: 1248-9204
Titre abrégé: Hernia
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9715168
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
22
03
2020
accepted:
11
05
2020
pubmed:
26
5
2020
medline:
5
10
2021
entrez:
26
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterise the stage of innovation for bioabsorbable mesh devices used during both midline closure prophylaxis and complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence. A systematic review of published and ongoing studies was performed until 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were studies where bioabsorbable mesh was used to support fascial closure either prophylactically after midline laparotomy or for repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. Exclusion criteria were: (1) study design was a systematic review, meta-analysis, letter, review, comment, or conference abstract; (2) included less than p patients; (3) only evaluated biological, synthetic or composite meshes. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria for study quality. Twelve studies including 1287 patients were included. Three studies considered mesh prophylaxis and nine studies considered hernia repair. There were only two published studies of IDEAL 2B. The remainder was IDEAL 2A studies. The quality of the evidence was categorised as having a risk of bias of a moderate, serious or critical level in nine of the twelve included studies using the ROBINS-I tool. The evidence base for bioabsorbable mesh is limited. Better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although new trial results over the next decade will improve the evidence base, more trials in emergency and contaminated settings are required to establish the limits of indication.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterise the stage of innovation for bioabsorbable mesh devices used during both midline closure prophylaxis and complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence.
METHODS
A systematic review of published and ongoing studies was performed until 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were studies where bioabsorbable mesh was used to support fascial closure either prophylactically after midline laparotomy or for repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. Exclusion criteria were: (1) study design was a systematic review, meta-analysis, letter, review, comment, or conference abstract; (2) included less than p patients; (3) only evaluated biological, synthetic or composite meshes. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria for study quality.
RESULTS
Twelve studies including 1287 patients were included. Three studies considered mesh prophylaxis and nine studies considered hernia repair. There were only two published studies of IDEAL 2B. The remainder was IDEAL 2A studies. The quality of the evidence was categorised as having a risk of bias of a moderate, serious or critical level in nine of the twelve included studies using the ROBINS-I tool.
CONCLUSION
The evidence base for bioabsorbable mesh is limited. Better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although new trial results over the next decade will improve the evidence base, more trials in emergency and contaminated settings are required to establish the limits of indication.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32449096
doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02217-3
pii: 10.1007/s10029-020-02217-3
pmc: PMC7867504
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3-12Références
Ann Surg. 2017 Jul;266(1):185-188
pubmed: 28594679
Surgery. 2010 Sep;148(3):544-58
pubmed: 20304452
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
Hernia. 2017 Dec;21(6):843-853
pubmed: 28864937
World J Surg. 2018 Jan;42(1):302-304
pubmed: 28717915
J Reconstr Microsurg. 2019 Jun;35(5):335-340
pubmed: 30557896
Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):1929-1936
pubmed: 29063307
Contemp Clin Trials. 2014 Nov;39(2):335-41
pubmed: 25445313
J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Apr;220(4):606-13
pubmed: 25797746
Front Surg. 2016 May 18;3:28
pubmed: 27243017
Hernia. 2020 Feb;24(1):85-92
pubmed: 31432287
Hernia. 2019 Oct;23(5):859-872
pubmed: 31152271
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
BMC Surg. 2018 Nov 20;18(1):104
pubmed: 30458747
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
World J Surg. 2019 Jan;43(1):149-158
pubmed: 30132226
J Am Coll Surg. 2017 Oct;225(4):472-480.e1
pubmed: 28826804
Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):1689-1694
pubmed: 28916979
Hernia. 2013 Aug;17(4):423-33
pubmed: 23673408
Ann Surg. 2017 Jan;265(1):205-211
pubmed: 28009747
Surg Innov. 2020 Feb;27(1):32-37
pubmed: 31617453
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Int J Surg. 2017 Oct;46:198-202
pubmed: 28890409
Hernia. 2015 Feb;19(1):1-24
pubmed: 25618025
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 21;10(9):e0138745
pubmed: 26389785
Surg Endosc. 2019 Aug;33(8):2629-2634
pubmed: 30361969
Ann Surg. 2016 May;263(5):1010-7
pubmed: 26465784
Lancet. 2009 Sep 26;374(9695):1105-12
pubmed: 19782876
Am J Infect Control. 1999 Apr;27(2):97-132; quiz 133-4; discussion 96
pubmed: 10196487