Prophylactic Mesh After Midline Laparotomy: Evidence is out There, but why do Surgeons Hesitate?

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias have an impact on patients' quality of life and on health care finances. Because of high recurrence rates despite mesh repair, the prevention of incisional hernias with prophylactic mesh reinforcement is currently a topic of interest. But only 15% of surgeons are implementing it, mainly because of fear for mesh complications and disbelief in the benefits. The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mesh in adult patients after midline laparotomy. METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL until 9/5/2020 for RCTs and cohort studies regarding mesh reinforcement versus primary suture closure of a midline laparotomy. The quality of the articles was analyzed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. Revman 5 was used to perform a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were found with a total of 1633 patients in the mesh reinforcement group and 1533 in the primary suture group. An odds ratio for incisional hernia incidence of 0.37 (95% CI = [0.30, 0.46], p < 0.01) with RCTs and of 0.15 (95% CI = [0.09,0.25], p < 0.01) in cohort studies was calculated. Seroma rate shows a significant odds ratio of 2.18 (95% CI = [1.45, 3.29], p < 0.01) in favor of primary suture. No increase was found regarding other complications. CONCLUSION: The evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh reinforcement is overwhelming with a significant reduction in incisional hernia rate, but implementation in daily clinical practice remains limited. Instead of putting patients at risk for incisional hernia formation and subsequent complications, surgeons should question their arguments why not to use mesh reinforcement, specifically in high-risk patients.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Approach for Formal Right and Left Hepatectomy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver surgery is expanding worldwide, but further evidence is needed to assess safety and efficacy of laparoscopic major hepatectomy. The study analyzes perioperative outcomes of pure laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomies matched by the propensity score method. METHODS: From 2005 to 2017, 268 major hepatectomies were performed of which 73 were laparoscopic. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 59 laparoscopic right and left hepatectomies were compared to 59 open. The matching was based on age, gender, year of procedure, BMI, ASA score, underlying liver disease, previous abdominal surgery, type of hepatectomy, preoperative chemotherapy, number, dimension and nature of lesions. An intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis were carried out. RESULTS: Mean surgical time was 315 min in the laparoscopic group and 292.5 min in the open group (p = 0.039); conversion rate in laparoscopy was 20.3%; blood loss was 480 ml (50-3000) versus 550 ml (50-2600), respectively, for laparoscopic and open (p = 0.577). Lengths of postoperative analgesia and hospital stay were shorter in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.0001 and 0.024, respectively). Postoperative complications occurred in 11.9% of laparoscopic cases and in 25.4% of open cases (p = 0.098). Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 26.2 (8.7-54.2) in the open group versus 20.9 (8.7-66.2) in open (p = 0.368). Per-protocol analysis showed a better trend in favor of laparoscopy concerning surgical time. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic major hepatectomies are safe and feasible procedures allowing a similar complication rate with a shorter hospital stay and diminished postoperative pain with respect to the standard approach.