The incidence of extraction site incisional hernia after minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: Minimally invasive colorectal surgery reduces surgical trauma with better preservation of abdominal wall integrity, but the extraction site is still at risk of incisional hernia (IH). The aim of this study was to determine pooled incidence of IH for each type of extraction site and to compare rates of IH after midline, nonmidline and Pfannenstiel extraction. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Single-armed and multiple-armed cohort studies and randomized controlled trials regarding minimally invasive colorectal surgery were searched from five databases. Outcomes were pooled and compared with random-effects, inverse-variance models. Risk of bias within the studies was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tool. RESULTS: Thirty six studies were included, with a total 11,788 patients. The pooled extraction site IH rate was 16.0% for midline (n = 4081), 9.3% for umbilical (n = 2425), 5.2% for transverse (n = 3213), 9.4% for paramedian (n = 134) and 2.1% for Pfannenstiel (n = 1449). Nonmidline extraction (transverse and paramedian) showed significantly lower odds ratios (ORs) for IH when compared with midline extraction (including umbilical). Pfannenstiel extraction resulted in a significantly lower OR for IH compared with midline [OR 0.12 (0.50-0.30)], transverse [OR 0.25 (0.13-0.50)] and umbilical (OR 0.072 [0.033-0.16]) extraction sites. The risks of surgical site infection, seroma/haematoma or wound dehiscence were not significantly different in any of the analyses. CONCLUSION: Pfannenstiel extraction is the preferred method in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. In cases where Pfannenstiel extraction is not possible, surgeons should avoid specimen extraction in the midline.

Factors Predicting Increased Length of Stay in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have become increasingly popular in general surgery, yet no guidelines exist for an abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR)-specific program. We aimed to evaluate predictors of increased length of stay (LOS) in the AWR population to aid in creating an AWR-specific ERAS protocol. METHODS: A prospective, single institution hernia center database was queried for all patients undergoing open AWR (1999-2019). Standard statistical methods and linear and logistic regression were used to evaluate for predictors of increased LOS. Groups were compared based on LOS below or above the median LOS of 6 days (IQR = 4-8). RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 2,505 patients. On average, the high LOS group was older, with higher rates of CAD, COPD, diabetes, obesity, and pre-operative narcotic use (all P < .05). Longer LOS patients had more complex hernias with larger defects, higher rates of mesh infection/fistula, and more often required a component separation (all P < .05). Multivariate analysis identified age (ß0.04,SE0.02), BMI (ß0.06,SE0.03), hernia defect size (ß0.003,SE0.001), active mesh infection or mesh fistula (ß1.8,SE0.72), operative time (ß0.02,SE0.002), and ASA score >4 (ß3.6,SE1.7) as independently associated factors for increased LOS (all P < .05). Logistic regression showed that an increased length of stay trended toward an increased risk of hernia recurrence (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple patient and hernia characteristics are shown to significantly affect LOS, which, in turn, increases the odds of AWR failure. Weight loss, peri-operative geriatric optimization, prehabilitation of comorbidities, and operating room efficiency can enhance recovery and shorten LOS following AWR.

Don't fear the (small) bite: A narrative review of the rationale and misconceptions surrounding closure of abdominal wall incisions.

Background: The most common complications related to the closure of abdominal wall incisions are surgical site infections, wound dehiscence and the development of an incisional hernia. Several factors relating to the surgical technique and the materials used have been identified and analysed over the years, as mirrored in the current recommendations of the European Hernia Society, but some misconceptions still remain that hinder wide implementation. Method: A literature search was performed in the PubMed and GoogleScholar databases on 15 July 2021 and additionally on 30 March 2022 to include recent updates. The goal was to describe the scientific background behind the optimal strategies for reducing incisional hernia risk after closure of abdominal wall incisions in a narrative style review. Results: An aponeurosis alone, small bites/small steps continuous suture technique should be used, using a slowly resorbable USP 2/0 or alternatively USP 0 suture loaded in a small ½ circle needle. The fascial edges should be properly visualised and tension should be moderate. Conclusion: Despite the reproducibility, low risk and effectiveness in reducing wound complications following abdominal wall incisions, utilisation of the recommendation of the guidelines of the European Hernia Society remain relatively limited. More work is needed to clear misconceptions and disseminate the established knowledge and technique especially to younger surgeons.

Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim of these updated guidelines was to provide recommendations to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia. METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed on 22 January 2022. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network instrument was used to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCTs, and cohort studies. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to appraise the certainty of the evidence. The guidelines group consisted of surgical specialists, a biomedical information specialist, certified guideline methodologist, and patient representative. RESULTS: Thirty-nine papers were included covering seven key questions, and weak recommendations were made for all of these. Laparoscopic surgery and non-midline incisions are suggested to be preferred when safe and feasible. In laparoscopic surgery, suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus. For closure of an elective midline laparotomy, a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomy can be considered to reduce the risk of incisional hernia; a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position is advised. CONCLUSION: These updated guidelines may help surgeons in selecting the optimal approach and location of abdominal wall incisions.

An incisional hernia results from a weakness of the abdominal wall muscles that allows fat from the inside or organs to bulge out. These hernias are quite common after abdominal surgery at the site of a previous incision. There is research that discusses different ways to close an incision and this may relate to the chance of hernia formation. The aim of this study was to review the latest research and to provide a guide for surgeons on how best to close incisions to decrease hernia rates. When possible, surgery through small incisions may decrease the risk of hernia formation. If small incisions are used, it may be better if they are placed away from areas that are already weak (such as the belly button). If the incision is larger than 1 cm, it should be closed with a deep muscle-fascia suture in addition to skin sutures. If there is a large incision in the middle of the abdomen, the muscle should be sutured using small stitches that are close together and a slowly absorbable suture should be used. For patients who are at higher risk of developing hernias, when closing the incision, the muscle layer can be strengthened by using a piece of (synthetic) mesh. There is no good research available on recovery after surgery and no clear guides on activity level or whether a binder will help prevent hernia formation.

Multicenter analysis of laparoscopic versus open umbilical hernia repair with mesh: outcomes and quality of life (QoL).

INTRODUCTION: Umbilical hernia repair (UHR) is a common operation with varying surgical approaches. Laparoscopic (LUHR) and open (OUHR) operations are routinely performed, but their impact on quality of life (QoL) is not well described. Our aim was to evaluate perioperative outcomes and QoL of LUHR versus OUHR. METHODS: The prospectively collected International Hernia Mesh Registry was queried for patients undergoing UHR with mesh placement. QoL was measured using the Carolinas Comfort Scale preoperatively and 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Propensity match was performed controlling for hernia defect size (HDS), recurrent hernias, and BMI. RESULTS: 585 patients underwent 178 (30.4%) LUHR and 407 (69.6%) OUHR. LUHR patients had higher BMI, larger HDS, and more recurrent hernias (p < 0.05). Rates of other comorbidities were similar (p > 0.05). Tacks were used more frequently in LUHR (91.6% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001), and suture was used more often in OUHR (97.1% vs 47.8%, p < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes were similar (p > 0.05) except LUHR had higher rates of seroma (13.9% vs 4.3%, p < 0.001). Overall recurrence rates trended to favor OUHR, but not significantly (4.7% vs 8.4%, p = 0.07). The propensity match yielded 138 matched pairs. LUHR had more seromas and OUHR had higher infection rates (p < 0.05). Hernia recurrence was higher following LUHR (9.4% vs 2.9%, p = 0.02). QoL data were available for an average of 457 patients at each time period. QoL was superior in the OUHR group for pain and overall QoL at each time point and activity limitations at 6 and 12 months (p < 0.05). When examining patients who were asymptomatic preoperatively, OUHR had improved one-month overall QoL, but both groups had over 90% of patients report being asymptomatic postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: OUHR is associated with higher rates of surgical site infections, but significantly lower rates of seroma formation and hernia recurrence compared to LUHR, while having superior QoL in both short- and long-term follow-up. Asymptomatic patients tend to have excellent QoL outcomes.

Biologic mesh is non-inferior to synthetic mesh in CDC class 1 & 2 open abdominal wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Biologic mesh has historically been used in contaminated abdominal wall reconstructions (AWRs). No study has compared outcomes of biologic and synthetic in clean and clean-contaminated hernia ventral hernia repair. METHODS: A prospective AWR database identified patients undergoing open, preperitoneal AWR with biologic mesh in CDC class 1 and 2 wounds. Using propensity score matching, a matched cohort of patients with synthetic mesh was created. The objective was to assess recurrence rates and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were matched in each group. Patient in the biologic group had higher rates of immunosuppression, history of transplantation, and inflammatory bowel disease (p ≤ 0.05). Operative variables were comparable for biologic vs synthetic, including defect size (230.5 ± 135.4 vs 268.7 ± 194.5 cm2, p = 0.62), but the synthetic mesh group had larger meshes placed (575.6 ± 247.0 vs 898.8 ± 246.0 cm2 p < 0.0001). Wound infections (15.5% vs 8.9%, p = 0.28) were equivalent, and recurrence rates (1.7% vs 3.4%, p = 1.00) were similar on follow up (19.3 ± 23.3 vs 23.3 ± 29.7 months, p = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: In matched, lower risk, complex AWR patients with large hernia defects, biologic and synthetic meshes have equal outcomes.

Adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery and intraoperative transverse abdominis plane block decreases opioid use and length of stay in very large open ventral hernia repairs.

BACKGROUND: The effect of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway including liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominus plane (TAP)-blocks for abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) on opioids use is not clear. METHODS: A prospective, tertiary hernia center database of patients undergoing AWR before and after ERAS and operative TAP-blocks was matched in large ventral hernias. RESULTS: In 106 patients, non-TAP-block and TAP-block groups were comparable in mean BMI (p = 0.694), hernia defect size (p = 0.424), components separation (p = 0.610), complete fascial closure (p = 1.0), and panniculectomy (p = 1.0). The total morphine milligram equivalents (MME) used during hospitalization was reduced by 3-fold in the TAP-block group (p < 0.001), and opioid usage decreased by 35%-71% during days 1-5. Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the TAP-block group by average of 1 day (p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: ERAS and TAP-block in AWR leads to a decrease in mean opioid usage by 65% and decreased LOS by an average of 1 day.

Are laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repairs truly comparable?: A propensity-matched study in large ventral hernias.

BACKGROUND: The merits of laparoscopic (LVHR) and open preperitoneal ventral hernia repair (OPPVHR) have been debated for more than 2 decades. Our aim was to determine peri-operative and long-term outcomes in large hernias. METHODS: A prospective, institutional database at a tertiary hernia center was queried for patients undergoing LVHR and OPPVHR. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed for hernia defect size and follow-up. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-two LVHR and OPPVHR patients were identified with defect sizes closely matched between laparoscopic (182.0 ± 110.0 cm2) and open repairs (178.3 ± 99.8 cm2), p = 0.64. LVHR and OPPVHR patients were comparable: mean age 57.2 ± 12.1 vs 56.6 ± 12.0 years (p = 0.52), BMI: 32.9 ± 6.6 vs 32.0 ± 7.4 kg/m2 (p = 0.16), diabetes 19.0% vs 19.7% (p = 0.87), and smoking history 8.7% vs 23.0% (p < 0.001), respectively. OPPVHR had higher number of recurrent hernias (14.2% vs 44.9%, p < 0.001), longer operative time (168.1 ± 64.3 vs 186.7 ± 67.7 min, p = 0.006), and more components separation (0% vs 20.3%, p < 0.001). Mean mesh size was larger (p < 0.001) in the open group (634.4 ± 243.4 cm2 vs 841.8 ± 277.6 cm2). The hernia recurrence rates were similar (10.8% vs 9.2%, p = 0.62), with average follow-up of 39.3 ± 32.5 vs 40.0 ± 35.0 months (p = 0.89). Length of stay was higher in the OVHR cohort (5.4 ± 3.0 vs 6.3 ± 3.6 days, p < 0.001), but 30-day readmission rates (4.0% vs 6.4%, p = 0.31) were similar. Overall wound infection rate (2.9% vs 8.4%, p = 0.03) was higher in the OPPVHR group, but the mesh infection rate was similar between LVHR (1.7%) and OPPVHR (0.6%) (p = 0.33). Postoperative pain (41.1% vs 41.4%, p = 0.95) and overall QOL based on the Carolinas Comfort Scale at 6 months (p = 0.73) and 5-years (p = 0.36) were similar. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic and open preperitoneal repair for large ventral hernias have equivalent hernia recurrence rates, postoperative pain, and QOL on long-term follow-up. Patients undergoing OPPVHR were more likely to be recurrent, complex, require components separation, and more likely to develop postoperative wound complications.

Image-guided botulinum toxin injection in the lateral abdominal wall prior to abdominal wall reconstruction surgery: review of techniques and results.

Ventral hernias represent the most common complication after abdominal surgery. Loss of domain and/or large ventral hernias in patients are especially challenging for surgeons to manage, but preoperative image-guided botulinum toxin injection has emerged as an effective adjunct to abdominal wall surgery. Loss of domain is caused by chronic muscle retraction of the lateral abdominal wall and leads to an irreducible protrusion of abdominal viscera into the hernia sac. Botulinum toxin can be used in the oblique muscles as a chemical component relaxation technique to aid abdominal wall reconstruction. Intramuscular botulinum toxin injection causes functional denervation by blocking neurotransmitter acetylcholine release resulting in flaccid paralysis and elongation of lateral abdominal wall muscles, increasing the rate of fascial closure during abdominal wall reconstruction, and decreasing recurrence rates. In total, 200-300 units of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®) or 500 units of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dypsort®) in a 2:1 dilution with normal saline is most commonly used. Botulinum toxin can be injected with ultrasonographic, EMG, or CT guidance. Injection should be performed at least 2 weeks prior to abdominal wall reconstruction, for maximal effect during surgery. At minimum, botulinum toxin should be injected into the external and internal oblique muscles at three separate sites bilaterally for a total of six injections. Although botulinum toxin use for abdominal wall reconstruction is currently not indicated by the Food and Drug Administration, it is safe with only minor complications reported in literature.

Impact of panniculectomy in complex abdominal wall reconstruction: a propensity matched analysis in 624 patients.

INTRODUCTION: In complex abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR), the role of concomitant panniculectomy has been debated due to concern for increased wound complications that impact outcomes; however, long-term outcomes and quality of life (QOL) have not been well described. The aim of our study was to evaluate the outcomes and QOL in patients undergoing AWR with panniculectomy utilizing 3D volumetric-based propensity match. METHODS: A prospective database from a tertiary referral hernia center was queried for patients undergoing open AWR. 3D CT volumetrics were analyzed and a propensity match comparing AWR patients with and without panniculectomy was created including subcutaneous fat volume (SFV). QOL was analyzed using the Carolinas Comfort Scale. RESULTS: Propensity match yielded 312 pairs, all with adequate CT imaging for volumetric analysis. The panniculectomy group had a higher BMI (p = 0.03) and were more likely female (p < 0.0001), but all other demographics and comorbidities were similar. The panniculectomy group was more likely to have undergone prior hernia repair (77% vs 64%, p < 0.001), but hernia area, SFV, and CDC wound class were similar (all p > 0.05). Requirement of component separation (61% vs 50%, p = 0.01) and mesh excision (44% vs 35%, p = 0.02) were higher in the panniculectomy group, but operative time were similar (all p ≥ 0.05). Panniculectomy patients had a higher overall wound occurrence rate (45% vs 32%, p = 0.002) which was differentiated only by a higher rate of wound breakdown (24% vs 14%, p = 0.003); all other specific wound complications were equal (all p ≥ 0.05). Hernia recurrence rates were similar (8% vs 9%, p = 0.65) with an average follow-up of 28 months. Overall QOL was equal at 2 weeks, and 1, 6, and 12 months (all p ≥ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite panniculectomy patients and their hernias being more complex, concomitant panniculectomy increased wound complications but did not negatively impact infection rates or long-term outcomes. Concomitant panniculectomy should be considered in appropriate patients to avoid two procedures.

Recurrent incisional hernia repairs at a tertiary hernia center: Are outcomes really inferior to initial repairs?

BACKGROUND: Recurrent ventral hernia repairs are reported to have higher recurrence and complication rates than initial ventral hernia repairs. This is the largest analysis of outcomes for initial versus recurrent open ventral hernia repairs reported in the literature. METHODS: A prospective, institutional database at a tertiary hernia center was queried for patients undergoing open ventral hernia repairs with complete fascial closure and synthetic mesh placement. RESULTS: A total of 1,694 open ventral hernia repairs patients were identified, including 896 (52.9%) initial ventral hernia repairs and 798 (47.1%)recurrent ventral hernia repairs. Recurrent ventral hernia repair patients were more complex: older (P = .003), higher body mass index (P < .001), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P < .001), incidence of diabetics (P = .003), comorbidities (P < .001), and larger hernia defects (133.3 ± 171.9 vs 220.2 ± 210.0; P < .001). Recurrent ventral hernia repairs also had longer operative times (161.6 ± 82.4 vs 188.2 ± 68.9 minutes; P < .001), increased use of preoperative botulinum toxin A injection (4.3% vs 10.1%; P = .01), components separation (19.2% vs 39.5%; P < .001), and panniculectomy (20.3% vs 35.8%; P < .001). The overall hernia recurrence rate was 4.4% at a mean follow-up of 36.6 ± 45.5 months. Between the initial ventral hernia repairs and recurrent ventral hernia repairs, the hernia recurrence rates were equivalent (4.2% vs 4.7%, P = .63). Rates of wound infection, seromas, hematomas, mesh infections, and wound related reoperations (P > .05) were nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: At a tertiary hernia center, despite higher-risk patients, larger hernia defects, and increased components separation in recurrent ventral hernia repairs, early recurrence rates, wound complications, and reoperations are similar to initial ventral hernia repairs.

Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair in the Geriatric Population : An Assessment of Long-Term Outcomes and Quality of Life.

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) has been shown to decrease wound complications and length of stay (LOS) but results in more postoperative discomfort. The benefits of LVHR for the growing geriatric population are unclear. The aim of our study is to evaluate long-term outcomes and quality of life (QOL) after LVHR in the geriatric population. METHODS: A prospectively collected single-center database was queried for all patients who underwent LVHR (1999-2019). Age groups were defined as <40 (young), 40-64 (middle age), and ≥65 years (geriatric). QOL was assessed with the Carolinas Comfort Scale. RESULTS: LVHR was performed in 1181 patients, of which 13.4% were young, 61.6% middle aged, and 25.0% geriatric. Hernia defect size (64.2 ± 94.4 vs 79.9 ± 102.4 vs 84.7 ± 110.0 cm2) and number of comorbidities (2.2 ± 2.1 vs 3.2 ± 2.2 vs 4.3 ± 2.2) increased with age (all P < .05). LOS increased with age (2.9 ± 2.5 vs 3.8 ± 2.9 vs 5.2 ± 5.3 days, P < .0001). Rates of postoperative cardiac events, pneumonia, respiratory failure, wound complication, reoperation, and death were similar (P > .05). Geriatric patients had increased rate of ileus and urinary retention (all P < .05). Overall recurrence rate was 5.7% with an average follow-up of 43.5 months, with no differences in recurrence between groups (P > .05). Geriatric patients had better overall QOL at 2 weeks (P = .0008) and similar QOL at 1, 6, and 12 months. DISCUSSION: LVHR offers excellent results in the geriatric population. Despite having increased rates of comorbidities and larger hernia defects, which may relate to LOS, rates of complications and recurrence were similar compared with younger cohorts, with better short-term QOL.

Contemporary concepts in hernia prevention: Selected proceedings from the 2017 International Symposium on Prevention of Incisional Hernias.

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of midline laparotomy and enterostomal creation and is associated with high morbidity, decreased quality of life, and high costs. The International Symposium on Incisional Hernia Prevention was held October 19-20, 2017, at the InterContinental Hotel in San Francisco, CA, hosted by the Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco. One hundred and three attendees included general and plastic surgeons from 9 countries, including principal participants for several of the seminal studies in the field. Over the course of the 2-day meeting, there were 38 oral presentations, 3 keynote lectures, and 2 panel discussions. The Symposium was a combination of new information but also a comprehensive review of the existing data so as to assess the current state of the field and to set the stage for future research. Further, the Symposium sought to increase awareness and thus emphasize the importance of preventing the formation of incisional and enterostomal hernias.

Parastomal Hernia: Impact on Quality of Life?

INTRODUCTION: Parastomal hernia (PH) is a frequent complication after end-colostomy formation. PH may negatively influence the quality of life in end-colostomy patients. Our study investigates the quality of life and body image (BI) in patients with an end-colostomy. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of end-colostomy patients in two different hospitals. Patients were included if they had received a Hartmann procedure or abdominal perineal resection between 2004 and 2011. Patients were invited to the outpatient clinic for clinical examination to determine if a PH was present and were asked to fill out the Short form 36, EuroQol-5D, and body image questionnaire (BIQ). RESULTS: One-hundred-and-fifty patients were eligible for the study; 139 filled out the questionnaires, of which 79 (56.8 %) had developed a PH. A linear multivariate regression showed PH caused a decrease in physical functioning (difference -10.2, p = 0.033) and general health (difference -9.0, p = 0.021), increase in pain (difference -11.3, p = 0.009) and decrease in the overall physical component score (difference -4.8, p = 0.020). The BIQ showed that PH increased the shame of the scar (difference -0.4, p = 0.010). Having an incisional hernia simultaneously decreased patients' scoring of the scar in the BIQ (difference -0.99, p = 0.015). DISCUSSION: PHs cause significant decreases in quality of life and BI of patients. Counseling of patients towards PH and prevention of PH should therefore be of more concern in surgical departments.

Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of midline laparotomy and is associated with high morbidity, decreased quality of life, and high costs. We aimed to compare the large bites suture technique with the small bites technique for fascial closure of midline laparotomy incisions. METHODS: We did this prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial at surgical and gynaecological departments in ten hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients aged 18 years or older who were scheduled to undergo elective abdominal surgery with midline laparotomy were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to receive small tissue bites of 5 mm every 5 mm or large bites of 1 cm every 1 cm. Randomisation was stratified by centre and between surgeons and residents with a minimisation procedure to ensure balanced allocation. Patients and study investigators were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was the occurrence of incisional hernia; we postulated a reduced incidence in the small bites group. We analysed patients by intention to treat. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01132209 and with the Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR2052. FINDINGS: Between Oct 20, 2009, and March 12, 2012, we randomly assigned 560 patients to the large bites group (n=284) or the small bites group (n=276). Follow-up ended on Aug 30, 2013; 545 (97%) patients completed follow-up and were included in the primary outcome analysis. Patients in the small bites group had fascial closures sutured with more stitches than those in the large bites group (mean number of stitches 45 [SD 12] vs 25 [10]; p<0·0001), a higher ratio of suture length to wound length (5·0 [1·5] vs 4·3 [1·4]; p<0·0001) and a longer closure time (14 [6] vs 10 [4] min; p<0·0001). At 1 year follow-up, 57 (21%) of 277 patients in the large bites group and 35 (13%) of 268 patients in the small bites group had incisional hernia (p=0·0220, covariate adjusted odds ratio 0·52, 95% CI 0·31-0·87; p=0·0131). Rates of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that the small bites suture technique is more effective than the traditional large bites technique for prevention of incisional hernia in midline incisions and is not associated with a higher rate of adverse events. The small bites technique should become the standard closure technique for midline incisions. FUNDING: Erasmus University Medical Center and Ethicon.

Infection susceptibility of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biological meshes in an experimental contaminated environment.

BACKGROUND: This experimental study investigates infectious complications and functional outcome of biological meshes in a contaminated environment. METHODS: In 90 rats peritonitis was induced, and after 24 hours, a biological mesh was implanted intraperitoneally including 2 non-crosslinked mesh groups (Strattice and Surgisis) and 2 crosslinked mesh groups (CollaMendFM and Permacol). Sacrifice was after 90 and 180 days. RESULTS: More mesh infections occurred in crosslinked meshes compared with non-crosslinked meshes (70% vs 4%; P < .001). Mesh infection was the highest in crosslinked CollaMendFM (81.2%) and lowest in non-crosslinked Strattice groups (0%). Incorporation into the abdominal wall was poor in all meshes (0% to 39%). After 180 days no residue of non-crosslinked Surgisis mesh was found. After 180 days, shrinkage was .8% in crosslinked Permacol and 20% in Strattice groups. Strattice showed the least adhesion formation (median 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Infection rate of biological meshes in a contaminated field was the highest in crosslinked meshes. All biological meshes showed poor incorporation, which makes long-term abdominal wall repair questionable.