Superiority trial for the development of an ideal method for the closure of midline abdominal wall incisions to reduce the incidence of wound complications after elective gastroenterological surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The recent guidelines from the European and American Hernia Societies recommend a continuous small-bite suturing technique with slowly absorbable sutures for fascial closure of midline abdominal wall incisions to reduce the incidence of wound complications, especially for incisional hernia. However, this is based on low-certainty evidence. We could not find any recommendations for skin closure. The wound closure technique is an important determinant of the risk of wound complications, and a comprehensive approach to prevent wound complications should be developed. METHODS: We propose a single-institute, prospective, randomized, blinded-endpoint trial to assess the superiority of the combination of continuous suturing of the fascia without peritoneal closure and continuous suturing of the subcuticular tissue (study group) over that of interrupted suturing of the fascia together with the peritoneum and interrupted suturing of the subcuticular tissue (control group) for reducing the incidence of midline abdominal wall incision wound complications after elective gastroenterological surgery with a clean-contaminated wound. Permuted-block randomization with an allocation ratio of 1:1 and blocking will be used. We hypothesize that the study group will show a 50% reduction in the incidence of wound complications. The target number of cases is set at 284. The primary outcome is the incidence of wound complications, including incisional surgical site infection, hemorrhage, seroma, wound dehiscence within 30 days after surgery, and incisional hernia at approximately 1 year after surgery. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide initial evidence on the ideal combination of fascial and skin closure for midline abdominal wall incision to reduce the incidence of overall postoperative wound complications after gastroenterological surgery with a clean-contaminated wound. This trial is expected to generate high-quality evidence that supports the current guidelines for the closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies and to contribute to their next updates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR UMIN000048442. Registered on 1 August 2022. https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000055205.

Protocol for an independent patient data meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh placement for incisional hernia prevention after abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: a collaborative European Hernia Society project (I-PREVENT-AAA).

INTRODUCTION: Incisional hernia (IH) is a prevalent and potentially dangerous complication of abdominal surgery, especially in high-risk groups. Mesh reinforcement of the abdominal wall has been studied as a potential intervention to prevent IHs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that prophylactic mesh reinforcement after abdominal surgery, in general, is effective and safe. In patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), prophylactic mesh reinforcement after open repair has not yet been recommended in official guidelines, because of relatively small sample sizes in individual trials. Furthermore, the identification of subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh placement requires larger patient numbers. Our primary aim is to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the use of a prophylactic mesh after open AAA surgery to prevent IH by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA). Secondary aims include the evaluation of postoperative complications, pain and quality of life, and the identification of potential subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh reinforcement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review to identify RCTs that study prophylactic mesh placement after open AAA surgery. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar will be searched from the date of inception onwards. RCTs must directly compare primary sutured closure with mesh closure in adult patients who undergo open AAA surgery. Lead authors of eligible studies will be asked to share individual participant data (IPD). The risk of bias (ROB) for each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane ROB tool. An IPDMA will be performed to evaluate the efficacy, with the IH rate as the primary outcome. Any signs of heterogeneity will be evaluated by Forest plots. Time-to-event analyses are performed using Cox regression analysis to evaluate risk factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No new data will be collected in this study. We will adhere to institutional, national and international regulations regarding the secure and confidential sharing of IPD, addressing ethics as indicated. We will disseminate findings via international conferences, open-source publications in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted online. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022347881.

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).

Small bite fascial closure technique reduces incisional hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients.

BACKGROUND: The potential for the technique of small bite fascial closure in mitigating incisional hernias in gynecologic oncology patients still needs to be investigated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of closure of small fascial bites compared with prior standard closure on incisional hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study comparing patient outcomes before and after the intervention at a single institution at a comprehensive cancer center. Patients who underwent laparotomy with a vertical midline incision for a suspected or known gynecologic malignancy with a 1-year follow-up were included. The pre-intervention cohort (large bites) had 'mass' or modified running Smead-Jones closure. In contrast, the post-intervention cohort had fascial bites taken 5-8 mm laterally with no more than 5 mm travel (small bites) closure using a 2-0 polydioxanone suture.The primary outcome was the incisional hernias rate determined by imaging or clinical examination within the first year of follow-up. Patient factors and peri-operative variates of interest were investigated for their association with hernia formation through univariate and multivariate analyses. These included age, body mass index (BMI), smoking history, estimated blood loss, pre-operative albumin, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) physical status classification, or treatment with chemotherapy post-operatively. RESULTS: Of the 255 patients included, the total hernia rate was 12.5% (32/255 patients). Patient characteristics were similar in both cohorts. Small bite closure led to a significant reduction in hernia rates from 17.2% (22/128 patients) to 7.9% (10/127 patients), p=0.025. According to logistic regression modeling, small bite closure (OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.94, p=0.036) was independently associated with lower odds of hernia formation. Other factors associated with increased hernia rates were chemotherapy (OR=3.22, 95% CI 1.22 to 8.51, p=0.019) and obesity (OR=23.4, 95% CI 3.09 to 177, p=0.002). In obese patients, small bite closures led to maximal hernia rate reduction compared with large bites. CONCLUSIONS: The small bite closure technique effectively reduces hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing midline laparotomy.

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.

Reversal of stoma with biosynthetic mesh fascial reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: Temporary stoma formation remains a common part of modern-day colorectal surgical operations. At the time of reversal, a second procedure is required when the bowel is anastomosed and the musculature is closed. The rate of incisional hernia at these sites is 30%-35% with conventional suture closure. Mesh placement at this site is therefore an attractive option to reduce hernia risk, particularly as new mesh types, such as biosynthetic meshes, are available. The aim of this work was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the use of mesh for prophylaxis of incisional hernia at stoma closure and to explore the outcome measures used by each of the included studies to establish whether they are genuinely patient-centred. METHOD: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the published literature regarding the use of mesh at stoma site closure operations. Comprehensive literature searches of major electronic databases were performed by an information specialist. Screening of search results was undertaken using standard systematic review principles. Data from selected studies were input into an Excel file. Meta-analysis of the results of included studies was conducted using RevMan software (v.5.4). Randomized controlled trial (RCT) and non-RCT data were analysed separately. RESULTS: Eleven studies with a total of 2008 patients were selected for inclusion, with various mesh types used. Of the included studies, one was a RCT, seven were nonrandomized comparative studies and three were case series. The meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies shows that the rate of incisional hernia was lower in the mesh reinforcement group compared with the suture closure group (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12-0.37) while rates of infection and haematoma/seroma were similar between groups (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.41-1.21 and OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.63-1.80, respectively). The results of the RCT were in line with those of the nonrandomized studies. CONCLUSION: Current evidence indicates that mesh is safe and reduces incisional hernia. However, this is not commonly adopted into current clinical practice and the literature has minimal patient-reported outcome measures. Future work should explore the reasons for such slow adoption as well as the preferences of patients in terms of outcome measures that matter most to them.

Development and preliminary evaluation of a novel procedure for creation of an ileal conduit stoma aimed at preventing parastomal hernia.

OBJECTIVES: Our previous study suggested that the operative procedure is critical for the development of parastomal hernia. We developed a novel procedure for the creation of an ileal conduit stoma to prevent parastomal hernia. Herein we evaluate the efficacy and safety of the procedure. METHODS: A total of 113 Japanese patients underwent radical cystectomy and ileal conduit diversion for bladder cancer from January 2017 through December 2021 at our institution. After excluding those with incomplete data, 103 patients consisting of 46 (44.7%) with the conventional procedure and 57 (55.3%) with the novel procedure were consecutively enrolled. The main points of the novel procedure are as follows: (1) the passage of the ileal conduit is ≤2.4 cm in diameter in principle; (2) the posterior rectus sheath and peritoneum are vertically incised 2 cm laterally from the middle of the stoma site to make an oblique passage for the ileal conduit; and (3) the anterior rectus sheath and posterior rectus sheath with peritoneum are fixed to the ileal conduit separately. RESULTS: Radiography-based parastomal hernia was observed in 11 patients (10.7%) with a median follow-up of 22.0 months. The incidences of parastomal hernia were 3.5% and 19.6% in the novel and the conventional procedure groups, respectively (p = 0.011). The former had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of parastomal hernia (p = 0.008, log-rank test). No specific complications associated with the procedure were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the preliminary cohort study suggest that the novel procedure is safe and effective for the prevention of parastomal hernia.

External validation and revision of Penn incisional hernia prediction model: A large-scale retrospective cohort of abdominal operations.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) manifests in 10%-15% of abdominal surgeries and patients at elevated risk of this complication should be identified for prophylactic intervention. This study aimed to externally validate the Penn hernia risk calculator. METHODS: The Ramathibodi abdominal surgery cohort was constructed by linking relevant hospital databases from 2010 to 2021. Penn hernia risk scores were calculated according to the original model which was externally validated using a seven-step approach. An updated model which included four additional predictor variables (i.e., age, immunosuppressive medication, ostomy reversal, and transfusion) added to those of the three original predictors (i.e., body mass index, chronic liver disease, and open surgery) was also evaluated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was estimated, and calibration performance was compared using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit method for the observed/expected (O/E) ratio. RESULTS: A total of 12,155 abdominal operations were assessed. The original Penn model yielded fair discrimination with an AUC (95% confidence interval (CI)) of 0.645 (0.607, 0.683). The updated model that included the additional predictor variables achieved an acceptable AUC (95% CI) of 0.733 (0.698, 0.768) with the O/E ratio of 0.968 (0.848, 1.088). CONCLUSION: The updated model achieved improved discrimination and calibration performance, and should be considered for the identification of high-risk patients for further hernia prevention strategy.

Modified Approach for Extraperitoneal Colostomy Creation in Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection.

BACKGROUND: Parastomal hernia is a major long-term complication after abdominoperineal resection. Extraperitoneal colostomy has been proposed as an effective step for parastomal hernia prevention, but it has not been widely used as it is technically demanding and time-consuming. We proposed a modified approach for extraperitoneal colostomy creation by entering the extraperitoneal space through the arcuate line of the posterior rectus sheath. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, difficulty, and efficacy of long-term parastomal hernia prevention of the modified approach for extraperitoneal colostomy creation compared with the conventional transperitoneal colostomy approach. DESIGN: This was a retrospective evaluation of a surgical and video database. SETTINGS: This was a single-institution retrospective study. PATIENTS: Clinical data of 74 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection surgery from January 2019 to January 2020 in the Department of General Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, were retrospectively reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline characteristics, time required for colostomy creation (from skin incision to colostomy maturation), perioperative complications, and long-term colostomy-related complications were compared. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics did not differ between the 2 approaches. The BMI level ranged from 19.5 to 29.4 for patients undergoing extraperitoneal approach. Time required for colostomy creation median [interquartile range], (22 [21-25] minutes for extraperitoneal vs 23 [21-25] minutes for transperitoneal, p = 0.861) were comparable between the 2 approaches. The cumulative incidence of parastomal hernia was significantly greater with transperitoneal colostomy than extraperitoneal colostomy at 2 and 3 years postoperatively (16.2% vs 0%, p = 0.025, and 21.6% vs 0%, p = 0.005). The remaining perioperative complications and long-term colostomy-related complications did not differ between the 2 approaches. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its retrospective design and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The modified approach for extraperitoneal colostomy creation is safe, technically simple, and effective for long-term parastomal hernia prevention in patients with a BMI of 19.5 to 29.4.

Surgical site occurrence after prophylactic use of mesh for prevention of incisional hernia in midline laparotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The use of mesh is the standard for the prevention of incisional hernia (IH). However, the effect of surgical site occurrence (SSO) has never been compared. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the prevalence of SSO and measure its negative effect through the calculation of the number needed to treat for net effect (NNT net). METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of SSO and IH, and the secondary objective was to determine the NNT net as a metric to measure the combined benefits and harms. Only published clinical trials were included. The risk of bias was analyzed, and the random effects model was used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies comparing 2344 patients were included. The incidence of IH was significantly lower in the mesh group than in the control group, with an OR of 0.29 (95% CI 0.16-0.49, p = 0.0001). The incidence of SSO was higher in the mesh group than in the control group, with an OR of 1.21 (95% CI 0.85-1.72, p = 0.0001) but without statistical significance. Therefore, the way to compare the benefits and risks of each of the studies was done with the calculation of the NNT net, which is the average number of patients who need to be treated to see the benefit exceeding the harm by one event, and the result was 5, which is the average number of patients who need to be treated to see the benefit exceeding the harm by one event. CONCLUSION: The use of mesh reduces the prevalence of IH and it does not increases the prevalence of SSO, the NNT net determined that the use of mesh continues to be beneficial for the patient.

Prophylactic mesh does not prevent parastomal hernia in long-term: Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses evaluating parastomal hernia prevention with mesh placement during end colostomy formation have reported contradictory results. This review aimed to assess the efficacy of this strategy in long-term follow-up according to the latest available data. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched. Randomized clinical trials were included if they compared mesh with no mesh during initial end colostomy creation in adult patients to prevent parastomal hernia with a follow-up longer than 2 years. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate parastomal hernia incidence (primary outcome), parastomal hernia repair rate, and mortality. Subgroup analysis included surgical approach and mesh position, and trial sequential analysis was performed. RESULTS: Eight randomized clinical trials involving 537 patients met the inclusion criteria. Based on long-term follow-up, the incidence of parastomal hernia was not reduced when a prophylactic mesh was placed (relative risk = 0.68 [95% confidence interval:0.46-1.02]; I2 = 81%, P =.06). The parastomal hernia repair rate was low; however, no difference was found between the groups (relative risk = 0.90 [95% confidence interval:0.51-1.56]; I2 = 0%; P = .70), and no difference was detected between the groups when mortality was assessed (relative risk = 1.03 [95% confidence interval: 0.77-1.39]; I2 = 21%; P = .83). Subgroup analyses did not show differences according to the surgical approach or mesh position used. Regarding trial sequential analysis, an optimal information size was not achieved. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh placement during end colostomy formation does not prevent parastomal hernia in the long term. The parastomal hernia repair rate and mortality rate did not vary between the included groups. Heterogeneity among the included randomized clinical trials might restrict the reliability of the results.

Prevention of incisional hernia with retrorectus synthetic mesh versus biological mesh following loop ileostomy closure (Preloop trial).

BACKGROUND: The rate of incisional hernia after closure of a temporary loop ileostomy is significant. Synthetic meshes are still commonly avoided in contaminated wounds. The Preloop trial was a multicentre RCT designed to evaluate the benefits of synthetic mesh in incisional hernia prevention, and its safety for use in a contaminated surgical site compared with biological mesh. METHODS: Study patients who underwent closure of a loop ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer were assigned to receive either retrorectus synthetic or biological mesh to prevent incisional hernia. The primary outcomes were surgical-site infections within 30 days, and clinical or radiological incisional hernia incidence at 10 months. Secondary outcomes were reoperation rate, operating time, duration of hospital stay, other complications within 30 days of surgery, 5-year quality of life measured by RAND-36, and incisional hernia incidence within 5 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and September 2021, 102 patients were randomised, of whom 97 received the intended allocation. At 10-month follow-up, 90 patients had undergone clinical evaluation and 88 radiological evaluation. One patient in each group (2 per cent) had a clinical diagnosis of incisional hernia (P = 0.950) and one further patient in each group had a CT-confirmed incisional hernia (P = 0.949). The number of other complications, reoperation rate, operating time, and duration of hospital stay did not differ between the study groups. CONCLUSION: Synthetic mesh appeared comparable to biological mesh in efficacy and safety for incisional hernia prevention at the time of loop ileostomy closure. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03445936 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Risk factors associated to incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to identify which risk factors are associated with the appearance of an incisional hernia in a stoma site after its closure. This in the sake of identifying which patients would benefit from a preventative intervention and thus start implementing a cost-effective protocol for prophylactic mesh placement in high-risk patients. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane library, and ScienceDirect was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting incidence, risk factors, and follow-up time for appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure were included. A fixed-effects and random effects models were used to calculate odds ratios' estimates and standardized mean values with their respective grouped 95% confidence interval. This to evaluate the association between possible risk factors and the appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure. RESULTS: Seventeen studies totaling 2899 patients were included. Incidence proportion between included studies was of 16.76% (CI95% 12.82; 21.62). Out of the evaluated factors higher BMI (p = 0.0001), presence of parastomal hernia (p = 0.0023), colostomy (p = 0,001), and end stoma (p = 0.0405) were associated with the appearance of incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure, while malignant disease (p = 0.0084) and rectum anterior resection (p = 0.0011) were found to be protective factors. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic mesh placement should be considered as an effective preventative intervention in high-risk patients (obese patients, patients with parastomal hernia, colostomy, and end stoma patients) with the goal of reducing incisional hernia rates in stoma site after closure while remaining cost-effective.

A postoperative body weight increase is a novel risk factor for incisional hernia of midline abdominal incision after elective gastroenterological surgery.

PURPOSE: Midline abdominal incisions (MAIs) are widely used in both open and minimally invasive surgery. Incisional hernia (IH) accounts for most long-term postoperative wound complications. This study explored the risk factors for IH due to MAI in patients with clean-contaminated wounds after elective gastroenterological surgery. METHODS: The present study targeted patients enrolled in 2 randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of intraoperative interventions for incisional SSI prevention after gastroenterological surgery for clean-contaminated wounds. The patients were reassessed, and pre- and intraoperative variables and postoperative outcomes were collected. IH was defined as any abdominal wall gap, regardless of bulge, in the area of a postoperative scar that was perceptible or palpable on clinical examination or computed tomography according to the European Hernia Society guidelines. The risk factors for IH were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The study population included 1,281 patients, of whom 273 (21.3%) developed IH. Seventy-four (5.8%) patients developed incisional SSI. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.86, p = 0.031), high preoperative body mass index (OR, 1.81; 95% CI 1.19-2.77, p = 0.006), incisional SSI (OR, 2.29; 95% CI 1.34-3.93, p = 0.003), and postoperative body weight increase (OR, 1.49; 95% CI 1.09-2.04, p = 0.012) were independent risk factors for IH due to MAI in patients who underwent elective gastroenterological surgery. CONCLUSION: We identified postoperative body weight increase at one year as a novel risk factor for IH in patients with MAI after elective gastroenterological surgery.

Hernia Prevention: The Role of Technique and Prophylactic Mesh to Prevent Incisional Hernias.

Millions of laparotomies are performed annually, carrying up to a 41% risk of developing into a hernia. Incisional hernias are associated with morbidity, mortality, and costs; an estimated $9.6 billion is spent annually on repair of ventral hernias. Although repair is possible, surgeons must prevent incisional hernias from occurring. There is substantial evidence on surgical technique to reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation. This article aims to critically summarize the use of surgical technique and prophylactic mesh augmentation during fascial closure to inform decision-making and reduce incisional hernia formation.

[Perioperative prevention of complications in surgery of ventral hernias]. / Perioperatsionnaya profilaktika oslozhnenii v khirurgii ventral'nykh gryzh.

OBJECTIVE: To improve perioperative algorithm of prevention of complications in patients with ventral and incisional hernias via differentiated choice of mesh implants and hernia repair technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 144 patients with abdominal wall hernia, who were divided into two representative groups. RESULTS: Original algorithms for choosing the method of hernia repair depending on type and position of mesh implant, as well as methods of perioperative prevention of complications are proposed. CONCLUSION: These algorithms significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative wound complications after sublay hernia repair and posterior separation with TAR.