The impact of simultaneous panniculectomy in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is often performed in patients with obesity. While panniculectomy improves cosmetic outcomes, it may increase complications, particularly wound-related adverse events. Despite its widespread use, the impact of concurrent panniculectomy on postoperative complications in VHR remains unclear. This study aimed to assess whether concurrent panniculectomy increases postoperative complications in VHR. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for studies published up to April 2024 comparing surgical outcomes in patients undergoing VHR with and without concurrent panniculectomy. We assessed recurrence, seroma, hematoma, surgical site infections (SSI), wound dehiscence, skin necrosis, chronic wound, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, duration of surgery, and deep venous thromboembolism (DVT). Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled for dichotomous and continuous endpoints, respectively. We used RStudio for statistics and heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. RESULTS: We screened 890 studies, fully reviewed 40, and included 11 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials, comprising 23,354 patients. Of these, 2,972 (13%) patients underwent VHR with concurrent panniculectomy (VHR-PAN). The mean age ranged from 37 to 59 years, and 73% of the sample were women. The mean BMI varied from 29 to 45 kg/m2, and 75% of the patients underwent mesh repair. The mean defect area ranged from 36 to 389 cm2. Most repairs were performed using mesh (75%) in an underlay position (68%) and 24% underwent component separation. VHR-PAN was associated with a decrease in recurrence rates (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89; p < 0.001; I2 = 1%) with a follow-up ranging from 1 to 36 months. Furthermore, subgroup analysis of recurrence in studies with a mean follow-up of at least one year also showed a reduction in recurrence (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88; p < 0.001; I2 = 12%), with a follow-up ranging from 12 to 36 months. Moreover, concurrent panniculectomy was associated with increased SSI (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.51; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), SSO (RR 1.49; 95% CI 1.26 to 1.77; p < 0.001; I2 = 11%), skin necrosis (RR 2.94; 95% CI 1.26 to 6.85; p = 0.012; I2 = 0%) and reoperation (RR 1.73; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.28; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and longer LOS (MD 0.90 day; 95%CI 0.40 to 1.40; p < 0.001; I2 = 56%). There was no significant difference in ocurrence of DVT, enterocutaneous fistula, hematoma, seroma, or wound dehiscence, neither on operative time or readmission rates. CONCLUSION: VHR-PAN is associated with lower recurrence rates. However, it increases the risk of wound morbidity and reoperation and prolongs hospital stay. Surgeons should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of performing VHR-PAN. STUDY REGISTRATION: A review protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024542721).

Mesh versus suture for elective primary umbilical hernia open repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Recent guidelines indicate the use of mesh in UHR for defects > 1 cm, as it reduces recurrence, with 10% recurrence rate compared to up to 54.5% with primary closure. However, Nguyen et al. shows that primary closure is still widely performed in UHR, especially for small defects (1-2 cm), for which there is no published data to determine the optimal approach. In addition, previous meta-analysis by Madsen et al. comparing mesh repair with primary closure in UHR didn't exclude emergency conditions and recurrent hernias; also, didn't report subgroup analysis on hernia defect size. Thus, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the mesh repairs vs. primary closure of the defect in an open elective primary UHR. METHODS: We searched for studies comparing mesh with suture in open UHR in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Scielo, and Lilacs from inception until October 2023. Studies with patients ≤ 18 years old, with recurrent or emergency conditions were excluded. Outcomes were recurrence, seroma, hematoma, wound infection, and hospital length of stay. Subgroup analysis was performed for: (1) RCTs only, and (2) hernia defects smaller than 2 cm. We used RevMan 5.4. for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics, and random effect was used if I² > 25%. RESULTS: 2895 studies were screened and 56 were reviewed. 12 studies, including 4 RCTs, 1 prospective cohort, and 7 retrospective cohorts were included, comprising 2926 patients in total (47.6% in mesh group and 52.4% in the suture group). Mesh repair showed lower rates of recurrence in the overall analysis (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; P = 0.003; I2 = 24%) and for hernia defects smaller than 2 cm (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%). Suture repair showed lower rates of seroma (RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.32; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%) and wound infection (RR 1.65; 95%CI 1.12 to 2.43; P = 0.01; I2 = 15%) in the overall analysis, with no differences after performing subgroup analysis of RCTs. No differences were seen regarding hematoma and hospital length of stay. CONCLUSION: The use of mesh during UHR is associated with significantly lower incidence of recurrence in a long-term follow-up compared to the suture repair, reinforcing the previous indications of the guidelines. Additionally, despite the overall analysis showing higher risk of seroma and wound infection for the suture repair, no differences were seen after subgroup analysis of RCTs. STUDY REGISTRATION: A review protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024476854).

Transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) versus minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique is an open approach to groin hernia repair with posteriorly positioned mesh supposed to reduce recurrence rates. However, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) techniques have similar mesh positioning with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing TIPP and MIS for groin hernia repair. SOURCE: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing TIPP and MIS techniques for groin hernia repair. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, chronic pain, surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, and hematoma. We performed a subgroup analysis of TAPP and TEP techniques separately. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 81 studies were screened and 19 were thoroughly reviewed. Six studies were included, of which two compared TIPP with TEP technique, two compared TIPP with TAPP, and two compared TIPP with both TEP and TAPP techniques. We found lower recurrence rates for the TEP technique compared to TIPP (0.38% versus 1.19%; RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.01 to 7.11; P = 0.04). Also, we found lower seroma rates for TIPP group on the overall analysis (RR 0.21; P = 0.002). We did not find statistically significant differences regarding overall recurrence (RR 1.6; P = 0.19), chronic pain (RR 1.53; P = 0.2), SSI (RR 2.51; P = 0.47), and hematoma (RR 1.29; P = 0.76) between MIS and TIPP. No statistically significant differences were found in the subgroup analysis of TAPP technique for all the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found no differences between TIPP and MIS approaches in the overall analysis of recurrence, SSI, and chronic pain rates. Further research is needed to analyze individual techniques and draw a more precise conclusion on this subject. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: ID CRD42024530107, April 8, 2024.

Small bites versus large bites during fascial closure of midline laparotomies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Incisional ventral hernias (IVH) are common after laparotomies, with up to 20% incidence in 12 months, increasing up to 60% at 3-5 years. Although Small Bites (SB) is the standard technique for fascial closure in laparotomies, its adoption in the United States is limited, and Large Bites (LB) is still commonly performed. We aim to assess the effectiveness of SB regarding IVH. METHODS: We searched for RCTs and observational studies on Cochrane, EMBASE, and PubMed from inception to May 2023. We selected patients ≥ 18 years old, undergoing midline laparotomies, comparing SB and LB for IVH, surgical site infections (SSI), fascial dehiscence, hospital stay, and closure duration. We used RevMan 5.4. and RStudio for statistics. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics, and random effect was used if I2 > 25%. RESULTS: 1687 studies were screened, 45 reviewed, and 6 studies selected, including 3 RCTs and 3351 patients (49% received SB and 51% LB). SB showed fewer IVH (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.74; P < 0.001) and SSI (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53-0.86; P = 0.002), shorter hospital stay (MD -1.36 days; 95% CI -2.35, -0.38; P = 0.007), and longer closure duration (MD 4.78 min; 95% CI 3.21-6.35; P < 0.001). No differences were seen regarding fascial dehiscence. CONCLUSION: SB technique has lower incidence of IVH at 1-year follow-up, less SSI, shorter hospital stay, and longer fascial closure duration when compared to the LB. SB should be the technique of choice during midline laparotomies.