BACKGROUND
Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim of these updated guidelines was to provide recommendations to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia.


METHODS
A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed on 22 January 2022. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network instrument was used to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCTs, and cohort studies. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to appraise the certainty of the evidence. The guidelines group consisted of surgical specialists, a biomedical information specialist, certified guideline methodologist, and patient representative.


RESULTS
Thirty-nine papers were included covering seven key questions, and weak recommendations were made for all of these. Laparoscopic surgery and non-midline incisions are suggested to be preferred when safe and feasible. In laparoscopic surgery, suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus. For closure of an elective midline laparotomy, a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomy can be considered to reduce the risk of incisional hernia; a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position is advised.


CONCLUSION
These updated guidelines may help surgeons in selecting the optimal approach and location of abdominal wall incisions.

Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies.

Background Fascial dehiscence (FD) occurs in up to 14.9% of high-risk patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Although prophylactic mesh can prevent FD, its use in emergency operations remains controversial. Study Design A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Hospital das Clinicas from Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo in Brazil. It was performed among high-risk patients, defined according to Rotterdam risk model, undergoing midline emergency laparotomy. The patients were randomized into the suture group (SG), with slowly absorbable running sutures placed with a 36-mm-long needle at a suture-to-wound length ratio of 4:1, and the prophylactic mesh group (PMG), with fascial closure as in the SG but reinforced with onlay polypropylene mesh. The primary end point was incidence of FD at 30 days post operation. Results We analyzed 115 patients; 52 and 63 were allocated to the SG and PMG, respectively. In all, 77.4% of the cases were for colorectal resection. FD occurred in 7 (13.5%) patients in the SG and none in the PMG (p = 0.003). There was no difference between the groups in number of patients with surgical site occurrence (SSO) or SSO requiring procedural intervention. However, some specific SSOs had higher incidences in the mesh group: surgical site infection (20.6% versus 7.7%; p = 0.05), seroma (19.0% versus 5.8%; p = 0.03), and nonhealing incisional wound (23.8% versus 5.8%; p = 0.008). Of SSOs in the PMG and SG, 92.3% and 73.3%, respectively, resolved spontaneously or with bedside interventions. Conclusions Prophylactic onlay mesh reinforcement in emergency laparotomy is safe and prevents FD. Surgical site infection, seroma, and nonhealing incisional wound were more common in the mesh group, but associated with low morbidity within 30 days post operation.

Prevention of Fascial Dehiscence with Onlay Prophylactic Mesh in Emergency Laparotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Mesh position for hernia prophylaxis after midline laparotomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Incisional hernias have an impact on patients’ quality of life and on health care finances. Because of high recurrence rates despite mesh repair, the prevention of incisional hernias with prophylactic mesh reinforcement is currently a topic of interest. But only 15% of surgeons are implementing it, mainly because of fear for mesh complications and disbelief in the benefits. The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mesh in adult patients after midline laparotomy. An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL until 9/5/2020 for RCTs and cohort studies regarding mesh reinforcement versus primary suture closure of a midline laparotomy. The quality of the articles was analyzed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. Revman 5 was used to perform a meta-analysis. Twenty-three articles were found with a total of 1633 patients in the mesh reinforcement group and 1533 in the primary suture group. An odds ratio for incisional hernia incidence of 0.37 (95% CI = [0.30, 0.46], p < 0.01) with RCTs and of 0.15 (95% CI = [0.09,0.25], p < 0.01) in cohort studies was calculated. Seroma rate shows a significant odds ratio of 2.18 (95% CI = [1.45, 3.29], p < 0.01) in favor of primary suture. No increase was found regarding other complications. The evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh reinforcement is overwhelming with a significant reduction in incisional hernia rate, but implementation in daily clinical practice remains limited. Instead of putting patients at risk for incisional hernia formation and subsequent complications, surgeons should question their arguments why not to use mesh reinforcement, specifically in high-risk patients.

Prophylactic Mesh After Midline Laparotomy: Evidence is out There, but why do Surgeons Hesitate?

Incisional ventral hernias (IHs) are a common complication across all surgical specialities requiring access to the abdomen, pelvis, and retroperitoneum. This public health issue continues to be widely ignored, resulting in appreciable morbidity and expenses. In this critical review, the issue is explored by an interdisciplinary group. A group of European surgeons encompassing representatives from abdominal wall, vascular, urological, gynecological, colorectal and hepato-pancreatico-biliary
surgery have reviewed the occurrence of His in these disciplines. Incisional hernias are a major public health issue with appreciable morbidity and cost implications. General surgeons are commonly called upon to repair IHs following an initial operation by others. Measures that may collectively reduce the frequency of IH across specialities include better planning and preparation (e.g. a fit patient, no time pressure, an experienced operator). A minimally invasive technique should be employed where appropriate. Our main recommendations in midline incisions include using the ‘small bites’ suture technique with a ≥ 4:1 suture-to-wound length, and adding prophylactic mesh augmentation in patients more likely to suffer herniation. For off-midline incisions, more research of this problem is essential. Meticulous closure of the incision is significant for every patient. Raising awareness of the His is necessary in all surgical disciplines that work withing the abdomen or retroperitoneum. Across all specialties, surgeons should aim for a < 10% IH rate.

Preventing incisional ventral hernias: important for patients but ignored by surgical specialities? A critical review

Incisional hernia (IH) continues to be one of the most common complications of laparotomy. The short-term protective effect of the use of mesh has been demonstrated in several studies. At present, there is little evidence on the long-term results of the prophylactic use of mesh. The aim of the present study is to analyze the long-term prevention of IH 5 years after a midline laparotomy during elective surgery. A prospective study was performed including all of the 160 patients that had been previously included in the prospective, randomized, controlled trial performed between May 2009 and November 2012. The protocol and results at 1 year have been previously published in 2014. The patients in group A (mesh) were fitted with a polypropylene mesh to reinforce the standard abdominal wall closure. The patients in group B (non-mesh) underwent a standard abdominal wall closure and were not fitted with the mesh. All patients were followed for 5 years or until the diagnosis of incisional hernia was made, further surgery was performed, or the patient died. Cases lost to follow-up were also registered. Five years after surgery, in group A (mesh) we have found 4/80 (5.1%) incisional hernias, while in group B (no mesh) 37/80 patients were diagnosed with an incisional hernia (46.8%). The Kaplan–Meier survival curves for these results show statistically significant differences (p > 0.001). The protective effect of the use of an onlay mesh in abdominal wall closure is significantly maintained in the long-term, up to 5 years after surgery. International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial number: ISRCTN98336745.

Long-term results of a prospective randomized trial of midline laparotomy closure with onlay mesh

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

M. Olona

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Long-term results of a prospective randomized trial of midline laparotomy closure with onlay mesh