What is the ideal mesh location for incisional hernia prevention during elective laparotomy? A network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Journal
International journal of surgery (London, England)
ISSN: 1743-9159
Titre abrégé: Int J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101228232
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 May 2023
01 May 2023
Historique:
received:
13
09
2022
accepted:
26
01
2023
medline:
26
5
2023
pubmed:
8
4
2023
entrez:
7
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Incisional hernia (IH) represents an important complication after surgery. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) with different mesh locations [onlay (OL), retromuscular (RM), preperitoneal (PP), and intraperitoneal (IP)] has been described to possibly reduce the risk of postoperative IH. However, data reporting the 'ideal' mesh location are sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal mesh location for IH prevention during elective laparotomy. Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OL, RM, PP, IP, and no mesh (NM) were compared. The primary aim was postoperative IH. Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to assess relative inference. Fourteen RCTs (2332 patients) were included. Overall, 1052 (45.1%) had no mesh (NM) while 1280 (54.9%) underwent PMR stratified in IP ( n =344 pts), PP ( n =52 pts), RM ( n =463 pts), and OL ( n =421 pts) placement. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 67 months. RM (RR=0.34; 95% CrI: 0.10-0.81) and OL (RR=0.15; 95% CrI: 0.044-0.35) were associated with significantly reduced IH RR compared to NM. A tendency toward reduced IH RR was noticed for PP versus NM (RR=0.16; 95% CrI: 0.018-1.01), while no differences were found for IP versus NM (RR=0.59; 95% CrI: 0.19-1.81). Seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection, 90-day mortality, operative time and hospital length of stay were comparable among treatments. RM or OL mesh placement seems associated with reduced IH RR compared to NM. PP location appears promising; however, future studies are warranted to corroborate this preliminary indication.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Incisional hernia (IH) represents an important complication after surgery. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) with different mesh locations [onlay (OL), retromuscular (RM), preperitoneal (PP), and intraperitoneal (IP)] has been described to possibly reduce the risk of postoperative IH. However, data reporting the 'ideal' mesh location are sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal mesh location for IH prevention during elective laparotomy.
METHODS
METHODS
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OL, RM, PP, IP, and no mesh (NM) were compared. The primary aim was postoperative IH. Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to assess relative inference.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs (2332 patients) were included. Overall, 1052 (45.1%) had no mesh (NM) while 1280 (54.9%) underwent PMR stratified in IP ( n =344 pts), PP ( n =52 pts), RM ( n =463 pts), and OL ( n =421 pts) placement. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 67 months. RM (RR=0.34; 95% CrI: 0.10-0.81) and OL (RR=0.15; 95% CrI: 0.044-0.35) were associated with significantly reduced IH RR compared to NM. A tendency toward reduced IH RR was noticed for PP versus NM (RR=0.16; 95% CrI: 0.018-1.01), while no differences were found for IP versus NM (RR=0.59; 95% CrI: 0.19-1.81). Seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection, 90-day mortality, operative time and hospital length of stay were comparable among treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
RM or OL mesh placement seems associated with reduced IH RR compared to NM. PP location appears promising; however, future studies are warranted to corroborate this preliminary indication.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37026844
doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000250
pii: 01279778-202305000-00033
pmc: PMC10389496
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1373-1381Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Références
Diener MK, Voss S, Jensen K, et al. Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2010;251:843–856.
Pans A, Elen P, Dewé W, et al. Long‐term results of polyglactin mesh for the prevention of incisional hernias in obese patients. World J Surg 1998;22:479–482.
Gutiérrez de la Peña C, Medina Achirica C, Domínguez‐ Adame E, et al. Primary closure of laparotomies with high risk of incisional hernia using prosthetic material: analysis of usefulness. Hernia 2003;7:134–136.
Strzelczyk JM, Szymański D, Nowicki ME, et al. Randomized clinical trial of postoperative hernia prophylaxis in open bariatric surgery. Br J Surg 2006;93:1347–1350.
El‐Khadrawy OH, Moussa G, Mansour O, et al. , Prophylactic prosthetic reinforcement of midline abdominal incisions in high‐risk patients. Hernia 2009;13:267–274.
Bevis PM, Windhaber RA, Lear PA, et al. Randomized clinical trial of mesh versus sutured wound closure after open abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Br J Surg 2010;97:1497–1502.
Abo‐ryia MH, El‐ Khadrawy OH, Abd‐Allah HS. Prophylactic preperitoneal mesh placement in open bariatric surgery: a guard against incisional hernia development. Obes Surg 2013;23:1571–1574.
Bali C, Papakostas J, Georgiou G, et al. A comparative study of sutured versus bovine pericardium mesh abdominal closure after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Hernia 2015;19:267–271.
van Ramshorst GH, Eker HH, Hop WC, et al. Impact of incisional hernia on health‐related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study. Am J Surg 2012;204:144–150.
van Ramshorst GH, Eker HH, van der Voet JA, et al. Long‐term outcome study in patients with abdominal wound dehiscence: a comparative study on quality of life, body image, and incisional hernia. J Gastrointest Surg 2013;17:1477–1484.
Holihan JL, Alawadi Z, Martindale RG, et al. Adverse events after ventral hernia repair: the vicious cycle of complications. J Am Coll Surg 2015;221:478–485.
Fischer JP, Basta MN, Mirzabeigi MN, et al. A risk model and cost analysis of incisional hernia after elective, abdominal surgery based upon 12‚373 cases: the case for targeted prophylactic intervention. Ann Surg 2016;263:1010–1017.
Bhangu A, Fitzgerald JE, Singh P, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh placement for prevention of incisional hernia following midline laparotomy. Hernia 2013;17:445–455.
Parker SG, Halligan S, Liang MK, et al. International classification of abdominal wall planes (ICAP) to describe mesh insertion for ventral hernia repair. Br J Surg 2020;107:209–217.
Payne R, Aldwinckle J, Ward S. Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing the use of prophylactic mesh to standard midline closure in the reduction of incisional herniae. Hernia 2017;21:843–853.
Borab ZM, Shakir S, Lanni MA, et al. Does prophylactic mesh placement in elective, midline laparotomy reduce the incidence of incisional hernia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery 2017;161:1149–1163.
Timmermans L, de Goede B, Eker HH, et al. Meta-analysis of primary mesh augmentation as prophylactic measure to prevent incisional hernia. Dig Surg 2013;30:401–409.
Wang XC, Zhang D, Yang ZX, et al. Mesh reinforcement for the prevention of incisional hernia formation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Surg Res 2017;209:17–29.
Ahmed J, Hasnain N, Fatima I, et al. Prophylactic mesh placement for the prevention of incisional hernia in high-risk patients after abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus 2020;12:e10491.
Jairam AP, López-Cano M, Garcia-Alamino JM, et al. Prevention of incisional hernia after midline laparotomy with prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. BJS Open 2020;4:357–368.
Olavarria OA, Dhanani NH, Bernardi K, et al. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement for prevention of midline incisional hernias: a publication bias adjusted meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2023;277:e162–e169.
Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Gambero F, et al. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement for midline incisional hernia prevention: systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hernia 2022. [Epub ahead of print]. http://doi:10.1007/s10029-022-02660-4
doi: http://doi:10.1007/s10029-022-02660-4
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700.
Goossen K, Tenckhoff S, Probst P, et al. Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2018;403:119–129.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. Cochrane Bias Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
Der Simonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177–188.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, et al. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2010;1:97–111.
Aiolfi A, Tornese S, Bonitta G, et al. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic approach. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2019;15:985–994.
Kass RE, Wasserman L. A reference Bayesian test for nested hypotheses and its relationship to the Schwarz criterion. J Am Statist Assoc 1995;90 :928–934.
Friede T, Röver C, Wandel S, et al. Meta-analysis of few small studies in orphan diseases. Res Synth Methods 2017;8:79–91.
Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, et al. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41:818–827.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–560.
Smith BJ. boa: an R package for MCMC output convergence assessment and posterior inference. J Stat Softw 2007;21:1–37.
Aiolfi A, Bona D, Riva CG, et al. Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic Heller myotomy, pneumatic dilatation, and peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal achalasia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2020;30:147–155.
Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, et al. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med 2010;29:932–944.
Salanti G, Del Giovane C, Chaimani A, et al. Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e99682.
Core Team R. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2010.
Sarr MG, Hutcher NE, Snyder S, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter trial of Surgisis Gold, a biologic prosthetic, as a sublay reinforcement of the fascial closure after open bariatric surgery. Surgery 2014;156:902–908.
García‐Ureña MA, López‐Monclús J, Hernando LA, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the use of a large‐pore polypropylene mesh to prevent incisional hernia in colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 2015;261:876–881.
Muysoms FE, Detry O, Vierendeels T, et al. Prevention of incisional hernias by prophylactic mesh‐augmented reinforcement of midline laparotomies for abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2016;263:638–645.
Jairam AP, Timmermans L, Eker HH, et al. PRIMA Trialist Group. Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement versus primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): 2‐year follow‐up of a multicentre, double‐blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017;390:567–576.
Kohler A, Lavanchy JL, Lenoir U, et al. Effectiveness of prophylactic intraperitoneal mesh implantation for prevention of incisional hernia in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2019;154:109–115.
Glauser PM, Brosi P, Speich B, et al. Prophylactic intraperitoneal onlay mesh following midline laparotomy-long-term results of a randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 2019;43:1669–1675.
Caro-Tarrago A, Olona C, Millán M, et al. Long-term results of a prospective randomized trial of midline laparotomy closure with onlay mesh. Hernia 2019;23:335–340.
Loh C, Tan L, Wijerathne S, et al. Open versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal on-lay mesh repair: a comparison of outcomes in small ventral hernia. Asian J Surg 2022;46:712–717.
Akalin C, Karagulle OO. The effects of onlay titanium-coated mesh on recurrence, foreign body sensation and chronic pain after ventral hernia repair. Asian J Surg 2021;44:1158–1165.
Kesicioglu T, Yildirim K, Yuruker S, et al. Three-year outcome after anterior component separation repair of giant ventral hernias: a retrospective analysis of the original technique without mesh. Asian J Surg 2022;45:1117–1121.
Cavalli M, Aiolfi A, Bruni PG, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for diastasis recti abdominis: a review and proposal of a new anatomical variation. Hernia 2021;25:883–890.
Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW, et al. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double‐ blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;386:1254–1260.
Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K, et al. European Hernia Society. European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia 2015;19:1–24.
Gillion JF, Sanders D, Miserez M, et al. The economic burden of incisional ventral hernia repair: a multicentric cost analysis. Hernia 2016;20:819–830.
Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Ferraro SD, et al. Treatment of inguinal hernia: systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 2021;274:954–961.