RESUMO
PURPOSE: While the detrimental effects of smoking on postoperative outcomes are recognized, the extent of its risk for inguinal hernia repair remains unclear. Our study aims to assess the influence of smoking on patients who undergo inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: We systematically reviewed PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Our goal was to identify studies that compared postoperative outcomes in smoking and non-smoking patients after inguinal hernia repair, and which employed a multivariate analysis to reduce possible confounding factors. Outcomes were recurrence, postoperative complications, and surgical site infection. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed with the use of a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023445513). RESULTS: Our analysis encompassed 11 studies, involving a total of 577,901 patients. Of these, 77,226 (or 13.4%) identified as smokers, with males constituting 90% of the cohort. In terms of surgical approaches, 58% underwent laparoscopic procedures were most common at 58%, followed by open surgeries at 41%, and 1% used robotic techniques. All included studies had a low risk of bias. Smoking was associated with a higher incidence of hernia recurrence (OR 2.95; 95% CI 2.08 to 4.18; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). No differences were found in postoperative complication (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.32; p = 0.05; I2 = 56%) or surgical site infection (OR 2.94; 95% CI 0.80 to 10.88; p = 0.11; I2 = 79%). CONCLUSION: Smoking was associated with a three-fold increase in recurrence. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of preoperative smoking cessation on reducing recurrence.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure is controversial. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the placement of prophylactic mesh during emergency laparotomy. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Cochrane, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify RCT comparing prophylactic mesh augmentation and no mesh augmentation in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. We excluded observational studies, conference abstracts, elective surgeries, overlapping populations, and trial protocols. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023412934). RESULTS: We screened 1312 studies and 33 were thoroughly reviewed. Four studies comprising 464 patients were included in the analysis. Mesh reinforcement was significantly associated with a decrease in incisional hernia incidence (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.07-0.44; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and synthetic mesh placement reduced fascial dehiscence (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01-0.53; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Mesh augmentation was associated with an increase in operative time (MD 32.09 min; 95% CI 6.39-57.78; p = 0.01; I2 = 49%) and seroma (OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.54-9.84; p = 0.004; I2 = 0%), but there was no difference in surgical-site infection or surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy decreases incisional hernia and fascial dehiscence incidence. Despite the risk of seroma, prophylactic mesh augmentation appears to be safe and might be considered for emergency laparotomy closure. Further studies evaluating long-term outcomes are still needed.
