Prophylactic mesh augmentation after laparotomy for elective and emergency surgery: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a common short- and long-term complication of laparotomy and can lead to significant morbidity. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an up-to-date overview of the laparotomy closure method in elective and emergency settings with the prophylactic mesh augmentation technique. METHODS: The Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were screened without time restrictions up to 21 June 2022 using the keywords 'laparotomy closure', 'mesh', 'mesh positioning', and 'prophylactic mesh', and including medical subject headings terms. Only RCTs reporting the incidence of incisional hernia and other wound complications after elective or emergency midline laparotomy, where patients were treated with prophylactic mesh augmentation or without mesh positioning, were included. The primary endpoint was to explore the risk of incisional hernia at different follow-up time points. The secondary endpoint was the risk of wound complications. The risk of bias for individual studies was assessed according to the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials. RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs, including 2659 patients, were retrieved. A reduction in the risk of incisional hernia at every time point was highlighted in the prophylactic mesh augmentation group (1 year, risk ratio 0.31, P = 0.0011; 2 years, risk ratio 0.44, P < 0.0001; 3 years, risk ratio 0.38, P = 0.0026; 4 years, risk ratio 0.38, P = 0.0257). An increased risk of wound complications was highlighted for patients undergoing mesh augmentation, although this was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Midline laparotomy closure with prophylactic mesh augmentation can be considered safe and effective in reducing the incidence of incisional hernia. Further trials are needed to identify the ideal type of mesh and technique for mesh positioning, but surgeons should consider prophylactic mesh augmentation to decrease incisional hernia rate, especially in high-risk patients for fascial dehiscence and even in emergency settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42022336242 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/record_email.php).

Outpatient Non-operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Non-inferiority Study.

INTRODUCTION: Non-operative management (NOM) of uncomplicated acute appendicitis is a well-established alternative to upfront surgery. The administration of intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics is usually performed in hospital, and only one study described outpatient NOM. The aim of this multicentre retrospective non-inferiority study was to evaluate both safety and non-inferiority of outpatient compared to inpatient NOM in uncomplicated acute appendicitis. METHODS: The study included 668 consecutive patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Patients were treated according to the surgeon's preference: 364 upfront appendectomy, 157 inpatient NOM (inNOM), and 147 outpatient NOM (outNOM). The primary endpoint was the 30-day appendectomy rate, with a non-inferiority limit of 5%. Secondary endpoints were negative appendectomy rate, 30-day unplanned emergency department (ED) visits, and length of stay. RESULTS: 30-day appendectomies were 16 (10.9%) in the outNOM group and 23 (14.6%) in the inNOM group (p = 0.327). OutNOM was non-inferior to inNOM with a risk difference of-3.80% 97.5% CI (- 12.57; 4.97). No difference was found between inNOM and outNOM groups for the number of complicated appendicitis (3 vs. 5) and negative appendectomy (1 vs. 0). Twenty-six (17.7%) outNOM patients required an unplanned ED visit after a median of 1 (1-4) days. In the outNOM group, the mean cumulative in-hospital stay was 0.89 (1.94) days compared with 3.94 (2.17) days in the inNOM group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient NOM was non-inferior to inpatient NOM with regard to the 30-day appendectomy rate, while a shorter hospital stay was found in the outNOM group. Further, studies are required to confirm these findings.

Prediction of morbidity and mortality after early cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: results of the S.P.Ri.M.A.C.C. study.

BACKGROUND: Less invasive alternatives than early cholecystectomy (EC) for acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) treatment have been spreading in recent years. We still lack a reliable tool to select high-risk patients who could benefit from these alternatives. Our study aimed to prospectively validate the Chole-risk score in predicting postoperative complications in patients undergoing EC for ACC compared with other preoperative risk prediction models. METHOD: The S.P.Ri.M.A.C.C. study is a World Society of Emergency Surgery prospective multicenter observational study. From 1st September 2021 to 1st September 2022, 1253 consecutive patients admitted in 79 centers were included. The inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of ACC and to be a candidate for EC. A Cochran-Armitage test of the trend was run to determine whether a linear correlation existed between the Chole-risk score and a complicated postoperative course. To assess the accuracy of the analyzed prediction models-POSSUM Physiological Score (PS), modified Frailty Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), APACHE II score, and ACC severity grade-receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used to compare the diagnostic abilities. RESULTS: A 30-day major morbidity of 6.6% and 30-day mortality of 1.1% were found. Chole-risk was validated, but POSSUM PS was the best risk prediction model for a complicated course after EC for ACC (in-hospital mortality: AUC 0.94, p < 0.001; 30-day mortality: AUC 0.94, p < 0.001; in-hospital major morbidity: AUC 0.73, p < 0.001; 30-day major morbidity: AUC 0.70, p < 0.001). POSSUM PS with a cutoff of 25 (defined in our study as a 'Chole-POSSUM' score) was then validated in a separate cohort of patients. It showed a 100% sensitivity and a 100% negative predictive value for mortality and a 96-97% negative predictive value for major complications. CONCLUSIONS: The Chole-risk score was externally validated, but the CHOLE-POSSUM stands as a more accurate prediction model. CHOLE-POSSUM is a reliable tool to stratify patients with ACC into a low-risk group that may represent a safe EC candidate, and a high-risk group, where new minimally invasive endoscopic techniques may find the most useful field of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04995380.