IPOM plus versus IPOM standard in incisional hernia repair: results of a prospective multicenter trial.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair is a well-established technique with satisfying outcomes even at long term for the treatment of incisional and ventral hernia. However, the literature debate is still ongoing regarding the preferred surgical technique. Nowadays, two approaches are commonly adopted: the intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (sIPOM) and the intraperitoneal onlay mesh reinforcement with defect closure before mesh placement (pIPOM). The aim of this prospective analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes of patients treated for incisional hernia (IH) with sIPOM and pIPOM after 36 months follow-up in terms of recurrence, quality of life and wound events. METHODS: Patients receiving pIPOM and sIPOM for IH were actively followed up for 36 months. At the outpatient clinic, hernia recurrence (HR), mesh bulging (MB), quality of life with the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) and wound events were assessed. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and January 2019, 98 patients underwent a pIPOM and 89 underwent an sIPOM. At 36 months, nine patients (4 in pIPOM and 5 in sIPOM) experienced an HR, while MB was recorded in four patients in pIPOM and nine in sIPOM. No statistically significant difference could be identified also in terms of final GIQLI score and wound events. CONCLUSIONS: LVHR with or without fascial closure, also in our study, provides satisfactory results in terms of safety and efficacy. The discordant results in the literature are probably related to independent variables such as the type of mesh, the type of suture and closure technique. Therefore, was the funeral of sIPOM done too early? STUDY DATASET IS AVAILABLE ON CLINICALTRIALS. GOV ID: NCT05712213.

Is absorbable mesh useful in preventing parastomal hernia after emergency surgery? The PARTHENOPE study.

PURPOSE: Colostomy is a frequent event in oncological or inflammatory bowel diseases. Its related morbidity includes retraction, infection and parastomal hernia (PH), which is a quite common late complication. Several surgical options are available for PH repair, the majority including mesh. However, results are often disappointing with relevant recurrence rates, up to 33%. The study aim was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of prophylactic biosynthetic mesh (BIO-A®, polyglycolide-trimethylene carbonate copolymer) placed during colostomy fashioning, in reducing PH. A prospective randomized controlled double-blind trial was conducted from January 2014 to December 2019 to compare conventional end-colostomy with end-colostomy reinforced with BIO-A mesh in ante-rectus position in patients undergoing colon diversion in emergency surgery. METHODS: Patients were clinically followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months and received a CT scan at 6 and 12 months. The postoperative morbidity and wound events were also evaluated. RESULTS: 55 patients receiving conventional colostomy considered as Control Group and 55 patients receiving BIO-A mesh supported colostomy (Mesh Group) were included in the study. At 12 months, the incidence of PH was 9 (12.7%) and 24 (43.6%) in the Mesh Group and Control Group, respectively (p < 0.05). Postoperative morbidity was similar between Mesh Group and Control Group (7 [12.7%] vs 4 [7.3%], respectively; p = 0.340). The multivariable analysis showed that not using a mesh (p = 0.042), age > 70 years (p = 0.041), diabetes (p < 0.001), colon dilation > 7 cm (p < 0.0001) and COPD (p = 0.009) were all related with postoperative PH. CONCLUSIONS: The prophylactic BIO-A mesh positioning during colostomy is an effective procedure reducing PH incidence at a 1 years follow-up guaranteeing low postoperative morbidity. STUDY DATASET IS AVAILABLE ON CLINICALTRIALS. GOV ID: NCT04436887.

Prophylactic sublay non-absorbable mesh positioning following midline laparotomy in a clean-contaminated field: randomized clinical trial (PROMETHEUS).

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent postoperative complication after midline laparotomy. Prophylactic mesh augmentation in abdominal wall closure after elective surgery is recommended, but its role in emergency surgery is less well defined. METHODS: This prospective randomized trial evaluated the incidence of incisional hernia in patients undergoing urgent midline laparotomy for clean-contaminated surgery. Closure using a slowly absorbable running suture was compared with closure using an additional sublay mesh (Parietex ProGrip™). Patients were randomized just before abdominal wall closure using computer-generated permuted blocks. Patients, care providers, staff collecting data, and those assessing the endpoints were all blinded to the group allocation. Patients were followed up for 24 months by means of clinical and ultrasonographic evaluations. RESULTS: From January 2015 to June 2018, 200 patients were randomized: 100 to primary closure (control group) and 100 to Parietex ProGrip™ mesh-supported closure (mesh group). Eight patients in the control group and six in the mesh group were lost to follow-up. By 24 months after surgery, 21 patients in the control group and six in the mesh group had developed incisional hernia (P = 0.002). There was no difference between groups in the incidence of haematoma (2 versus 5; P = 0.248) and superficial wound infection (4 versus 5; P = 0.733). Multivariable analysis confirmed the role of mesh in preventing incisional hernia (odds ratio 0.11, 95 per cent c.i. 0.03 to 0.37; P < 0.001). One patient in the mesh group required mesh removal because of deep infection. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh-augmented abdominal wall closure after urgent laparotomy in clean-contaminated wounds is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of incisional hernia. Registration number: NCT04436887 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).