Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure is controversial. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the placement of prophylactic mesh during emergency laparotomy. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Cochrane, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify RCT comparing prophylactic mesh augmentation and no mesh augmentation in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. We excluded observational studies, conference abstracts, elective surgeries, overlapping populations, and trial protocols. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023412934). RESULTS: We screened 1312 studies and 33 were thoroughly reviewed. Four studies comprising 464 patients were included in the analysis. Mesh reinforcement was significantly associated with a decrease in incisional hernia incidence (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.07-0.44; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and synthetic mesh placement reduced fascial dehiscence (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01-0.53; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Mesh augmentation was associated with an increase in operative time (MD 32.09 min; 95% CI 6.39-57.78; p = 0.01; I2 = 49%) and seroma (OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.54-9.84; p = 0.004; I2 = 0%), but there was no difference in surgical-site infection or surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy decreases incisional hernia and fascial dehiscence incidence. Despite the risk of seroma, prophylactic mesh augmentation appears to be safe and might be considered for emergency laparotomy closure. Further studies evaluating long-term outcomes are still needed.

Drain placement in retromuscular ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Drain placement in retromuscular ventral hernia repair is controversial. Although it may reduce seroma formation, there is a concern regarding an increase in infectious complications. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis on retromuscular drain placement in retromuscular ventral hernia repair. METHODS: We performed a literature search of Cochrane, Scopus and PubMed databases to identify studies comparing drain placement and the absence of drain in patients undergoing retromuscular ventral hernia repair. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. RESULTS: 3808 studies were screened and 48 were thoroughly reviewed. Four studies comprising 1724 patients were included in the analysis. We found that drain placement was significantly associated with a decrease in seroma (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.12-0.96; P = 0.04; I2 = 78%). Moreover, no differences were noted in surgical site infection, hematoma, surgical site occurrences or surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the analysis of short-term outcomes, retromuscular drain placement after retromuscular ventral hernia repair significantly reduces seroma and does not increase infectious complications. Further prospective randomized studies are necessary to confirm our findings, evaluate the optimal duration of drain placement, and report longer-term outcomes.

Management of diastasis recti during ventral hernia repair: an analysis of the abdominal core health quality collaborative.

PURPOSE: Advancements of minimally invasive techniques leveraged routine repair of concomitant diastasis recti (DR), as those approaches facilitate fascial plication and wide mesh overlap while obviating skin incision and/or undermining. Nevertheless, evidence on the value of such intervention is lacking. We aimed to investigate the management and outcomes of concomitant DR during ventral hernia repair (VHR + DR) from surgeons participating in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC). METHODS: Patients who have undergone VHR + DR with a minimum 30-day follow-up complete were identified. Outcomes of interest included operative details, surgical site occurrences (SSO), medical complications, and readmissions. RESULTS: 169 patients (51% female, median age 46, median body mass index 31 kg/m2) were identified. Most hernias were primary (64% umbilical, 28% epigastric). Median hernia width was 3 cm (IQR 2-4) and median diastasis width and length were 4 cm (IQR 3-6) and 15 cm (IQR 10-20), respectively. Most operations were robotic (79%), with a synthetic mesh (92%) placed as a sublay (72%; 59% retromuscular, 13% preperitoneal). DR was repaired with absorbable (92%) and running suture (93%). Considering our cohort's relatively small diastasis and hernia size, a high rate of transversus abdominis release was noted (14.7%). 76% were discharged the same day and the 30-day readmission rate was 2% (2 ileus, 1 pneumonia). SSO rate was 4% (6 seromas, 1 skin necrosis) and only one patient required a procedural intervention. CONCLUSIONS: ACHQC participating surgeons usually perform VHR + DR robotically with a retromuscular synthetic mesh and close the DR with running absorbable sutures. Short-term complications occurred in approximately 6% of patients and were mainly managed without interventions. Larger studies with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the value of VHR + DR.