Systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of incisional hernia in urological surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence of incisional hernia in patients undergoing direct access to the abdominal cavity in urological surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central from 1980 to the present according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Eighty-four studies were selected for inclusion in this analysis, and meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. RESULTS: The total incidence in the 84 studies was 4.8% (95% CI 3.7% - 6.2%) I2 93.84%. Depending on the type of incision, it was higher in the open medial approach: 7.1% (95% CI 4.3%-11.8%) I2 92.45% and lower in laparoscopic surgery: 1.9% (95% CI 1%-3.4%) I2 71, 85% According to access, it was lower in retroperitoneal: 0.9% (95% CI 0.2%-4.8%) I2 76.96% and off-midline: 4.7% (95% CI 3.5%-6.4%) I2 91.59%. Regarding the location of the hernia, parastomal hernias were more frequent: 15.1% (95% CI 9.6% - 23%) I2 77.39%. Meta-regression shows a significant effect in reducing the proportion of hernias in open lateral, laparoscopic and hand-assisted compared to medial open access. CONCLUSION: The present review finds the access through the midline and stomas as the ones with the highest incidence of incisional hernia. The use of the lateral approach or minimally invasive techniques is preferable. More prospective studies are warranted to obtain the real incidence of incisional hernias and evaluate the role of better techniques to close the abdomen.

Establishing Peer Consensus About the Use of Long-Term Biosynthetic Absorbable Mesh for Hernia (Grades 2-3) as the Standard of Care.

BACKGROUND: Standard synthetic and biologic meshes, often used in hernia repair, have commonly been used and each have their strengths but associated drawbacks. Long-term biosynthetic absorbable (LTBA) mesh has been developed to combine the strengths of synthetic and biologic meshes without the associated weaknesses. As a newer type of mesh, the supporting evidence base is still growing, and their optimum use has yet to be defined. This consensus was initiated to provide insight into those situations where a LTBA might be considered the Standard of Care in ventral hernia repair grades 2-3 (original classification, 2010) of the Ventral Hernia Working Group. METHODS: A steering group of expert surgeons identified 35 statements, based around the evidence supporting LTBA, surgical technique, patients type most suitable for LTBA, risk-benefit of LTBA, patient and surgeon considerations, LTBA value. Surgeons involved in hernia repair received an online survey to assess consensus with these statements. Consensus was defined as high if ≥ 70% and very high if ≥ 90% of respondents agreed. Statements that had not achieved consensus agreement were revised and these were then issued for a subsequent round. Finally, 34 statements were included. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five surgeons were involved. Fourteen statements (41%) achieved very high consensus, 24 achieved consensuses (≥ 70-< 90%), whilst one (3%) just failed to achieve consensus with an agreement score of 69%. CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus opinion about the use of LTBA for hernia (Grades 2-3) as the Standard of Care was achieved. Based on the consensus scores, the steering group derived eleven keys.