Comparison of Medical Research Abstracts Written by Surgical Trainees and Senior Surgeons or Generated by Large Language Models.

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) has permeated academia, especially OpenAI Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT), a large language model. However, little has been reported on its use in medical research. Objective: To assess a chatbot's capability to generate and grade medical research abstracts. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 (referred to as chatbot 1 and chatbot 2) were coached to generate 10 abstracts by providing background literature, prompts, analyzed data for each topic, and 10 previously presented, unassociated abstracts to serve as models. The study was conducted between August 2023 and February 2024 (including data analysis). Exposure: Abstract versions utilizing the same topic and data were written by a surgical trainee or a senior physician or generated by chatbot 1 and chatbot 2 for comparison. The 10 training abstracts were written by 8 surgical residents or fellows, edited by the same senior surgeon, at a high-volume hospital in the Southeastern US with an emphasis on outcomes-based research. Abstract comparison was then based on 10 abstracts written by 5 surgical trainees within the first 6 months of their research year, edited by the same senior author. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measurements were the abstract grades using 10- and 20-point scales and ranks (first to fourth). Abstract versions by chatbot 1, chatbot 2, junior residents, and the senior author were compared and judged by blinded surgeon-reviewers as well as both chatbot models. Five academic attending surgeons from Denmark, the UK, and the US, with extensive experience in surgical organizations, research, and abstract evaluation served as reviewers. Results: Surgeon-reviewers were unable to differentiate between abstract versions. Each reviewer ranked an AI-generated version first at least once. Abstracts demonstrated no difference in their median (IQR) 10-point scores (resident, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; senior author, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; chatbot 1, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; chatbot 2, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; P = .61), 20-point scores (resident, 14.0 [12.0-7.0]; senior author, 15.0 [13.0-17.0]; chatbot 1, 14.0 [12.0-16.0]; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-16.0]; P = .50), or rank (resident, 3.0 [1.0-4.0]; senior author, 2.0 [1.0-4.0]; chatbot 1, 3.0 [2.0-4.0]; chatbot 2, 2.0 [1.0-3.0]; P = .14). The abstract grades given by chatbot 1 were comparable to the surgeon-reviewers' grades. However, chatbot 2 graded more favorably than the surgeon-reviewers and chatbot 1. Median (IQR) chatbot 2-reviewer grades were higher than surgeon-reviewer grades of all 4 abstract versions (resident, 14.0 [12.0-17.0] vs 16.9 [16.0-17.5]; P = .02; senior author, 15.0 [13.0-17.0] vs 17.0 [16.5-18.0]; P = .03; chatbot 1, 14.0 [12.0-16.0] vs 17.8 [17.5-18.5]; P = .002; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-16.0] vs 16.8 [14.5-18.0]; P = .04). When comparing the grades of the 2 chatbots, chatbot 2 gave higher median (IQR) grades for abstracts than chatbot 1 (resident, 14.0 [13.0-15.0] vs 16.9 [16.0-17.5]; P = .003; senior author, 13.5 [13.0-15.5] vs 17.0 [16.5-18.0]; P = .004; chatbot 1, 14.5 [13.0-15.0] vs 17.8 [17.5-18.5]; P = .003; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-15.0] vs 16.8 [14.5-18.0]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, trained chatbots generated convincing medical abstracts, undifferentiable from resident or senior author drafts. Chatbot 1 graded abstracts similarly to surgeon-reviewers, while chatbot 2 was less stringent. These findings may assist surgeon-scientists in successfully implementing AI in medical research.

Emergency umbilical hernia management: scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Umbilical hernias, while frequently asymptomatic, may become acutely symptomatic, strangulated or obstructed, and require emergency treatment. Robust evidence is required for high-quality care in this field. This scoping review aims to elucidate evidence gaps regarding emergency care of umbilical hernias. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were searched using a predefined strategy until November 2023. Primary research studies reporting on any aspect of emergency umbilical hernia care and published in the English language were eligible for inclusion. Studies were excluded where emergency umbilical hernia care was not the primary focus and subsets of relevant data were unable to be extracted. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts, resolving disagreements by consensus or a third reviewer. Data were charted according to core concepts addressed by each study and a narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Searches generated 534 abstracts, from which 32 full texts were assessed and 14 included in the final review. This encompassed 52 042 patients undergoing emergency umbilical hernia care. Most were retrospective cohort designs (11/14), split between single (6/14) and multicentre (8/14) with only one randomized trial. Most multicentre studies were from national databases (7/8). Themes arising included risk assessment (n = 4), timing of surgery (n = 4), investigations (n = 1), repair method (n = 8, four mesh versus suture; four laparoscopic versus open) and operative outcomes (n = 11). The most commonly reported outcomes were mortality (n = 9) and morbidity (n = 7) rates and length of hospital stay (n = 5). No studies included patient-reported outcomes specific to emergency umbilical hernia repair. CONCLUSION: This scoping review demonstrates the paucity of high-quality data for this condition. There is a need for randomized trials addressing all aspects of emergency umbilical hernia repair, with patient-reported outcomes.

Fragility of Randomized Clinical Trials Using Mesh in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

This systematic review evaluates the fragility of randomized clinical trials that used mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction.

EAES, SAGES, and ESCP rapid guideline: bowel preparation for minimally invasive colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. METHODS: This is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej . CONCLUSION: This guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders. Guideline registration number PREPARE-2023CN045.

Artificial intelligence as a diagnostic aid in cross-sectional radiological imaging of surgical pathology in the abdominopelvic cavity: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: There is emerging use of artificial intelligence (AI) models to aid diagnostic imaging. This review examined and critically appraised the application of AI models to identify surgical pathology from radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity, to identify current limitations and inform future research. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic database searches (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were performed. Date limitations (January 2012 to July 2021) were applied. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Primary research studies were considered for eligibility using the PIRT (participants, index test(s), reference standard and target condition) framework. Only publications in the English language were eligible for inclusion in the review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study characteristics, descriptions of AI models and outcomes assessing diagnostic performance were extracted by independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was performed in accordance with the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2)). RESULTS: Fifteen retrospective studies were included. Studies were diverse in surgical specialty, the intention of the AI applications and the models used. AI training and test sets comprised a median of 130 (range: 5-2440) and 37 (range: 10-1045) patients, respectively. Diagnostic performance of models varied (range: 70%-95% sensitivity, 53%-98% specificity). Only four studies compared the AI model with human performance. Reporting of studies was unstandardised and often lacking in detail. Most studies (n=14) were judged as having overall high risk of bias with concerns regarding applicability. CONCLUSIONS: AI application in this field is diverse. Adherence to reporting guidelines is warranted. With finite healthcare resources, future endeavours may benefit from targeting areas where radiological expertise is in high demand to provide greater efficiency in clinical care. Translation to clinical practice and adoption of a multidisciplinary approach should be of high priority. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021237249.

Surgical site infections after emergency hernia repair: substudy from the Management of Acutely Symptomatic Hernia (MASH) study.

INTRODUCTION: Acutely symptomatic abdominal wall and groin hernias (ASH) are a common acute surgical presentation. There are limited data to guide decisions related to surgical repair technique and use of antibiotics, which can be driven by increased risk of surgical site infection (SSI) in this group. This study aims to report rates of SSI following ASH repair and explore the use of patient-reported outcome measure reporting in this setting. METHODS: An 18-week, UK-based, multicentre prospective cohort study (NCT04197271) recruited adults with ASH. This study reports operatively managed patients. Data on patient characteristics, inpatient management, quality of life, complications, and wound healing (Bluebelle score) were collected. Descriptive analyses were performed to estimate event rates of SSI and regression analysis explored the relationship between Bluebelle scores and SSI. The 30 and 90-day follow-up visits assessed complications and quality of life. RESULTS: The MASH study recruited 273 patients, of whom 218 were eligible for this study, 87.2 per cent who underwent open repair. Mesh was used in 123 patients (50.8 per cent). Pre- and postoperative antibiotics were given in 163 (67.4 per cent) and 28 (11.5 per cent) patients respectively. There were 26 reported SSIs (11.9 per cent). Increased BMI, incisional, femoral, and umbilical hernia were associated with higher rates of SSI (P = 0.006). In 238 patients, there was a difference in healthy utility values at 90 days between patients with and without SSI (P = 0.025). Also, when analysing 191 patients with Bluebelle scores, those who developed an SSI had higher Bluebelle values (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SSI is frequent in repair of acutely symptomatic hernia and correlates with BMI and site of hernia.

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

AIM: The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR. METHOD: Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed. RESULTS: Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%). CONCLUSION: The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma.

EHS Rapid Guideline: Evidence-Informed European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-With ESCP and EAES Participation.

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity.

Update Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Evidence on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-A EHS, ESCP and EAES Collaborative Project.

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach.

Surviving rectal cancer at the cost of a colostomy: global survey of long-term health-related quality of life in 10 countries.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer management may require an ostomy formation; however, a stoma may negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare generic and stoma-specific HRQoL in patients with a permanent colostomy after rectal cancer across different countries. METHOD: A cross-sectional cohorts of patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer in Denmark, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, China, Portugal, Australia, Lithuania, Egypt, and Israel were invited to complete questionnaires regarding demographic and socioeconomic factors along with the Colostomy Impact (CI) score, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and five anchor questions assessing colostomy impact on HRQoL. The background characteristics of the cohorts from each country were compared and generic HRQoL was measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 presented for the total cohort. Results were compared with normative data of reference European populations. The predictors of reduced HRQoL were investigated by multivariable logistic regression, including demographic and socioeconomic factors and stoma-related problems. RESULTS: A total of 2557 patients were included. Response rates varied between 51-93 per cent. Mean time from stoma creation was 2.5-6.2 (range 1.1-39.2) years. A total of 25.8 per cent of patients reported that their colostomy impairs their HRQoL 'some'/'a lot'. This group had significantly unfavourable scores across all EORTC subscales compared with patients reporting 'no'/'a little' impaired HRQoL. Generic HRQoL differed significantly between countries, but resembled the HRQoL of reference populations. Multivariable logistic regression showed that stoma dysfunction, including high CI score (OR 3.32), financial burden from the stoma (OR 1.98), unemployment (OR 2.74), being single/widowed (OR 1.35) and young age (OR 1.01 per year) predicted reduced stoma-related HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Overall HRQoL is preserved in patients with a colostomy after rectal cancer, but a quarter of the patients interviewed reported impaired HRQoL. Differences among several countries were reported and socioeconomic factors correlated with reduced quality of life.

EAES rapid guideline: systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed European recommendations on appendicitis in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice recommendations for the management of acute appendicitis in pregnancy are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-informed, trustworthy guideline on the management of appendicitis in pregnancy. We aimed to address the questions of conservative or surgical management, and laparoscopic or open surgery for acute appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence appraisal using the GRADE methodology. A European, multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, obstetricians/gynecologists, a midwife, and 3 patient representatives reached consensus through an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to formulate the recommendations. The project was developed in an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp). RESULTS: Research evidence was of very low certainty. We recommend operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with complicated appendicitis or appendicolith on imaging studies (strong recommendation). We suggest operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with uncomplicated appendicitis and no appendicolith on imaging studies (weak recommendation). We suggest laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis until the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is below the level of the umbilicus; and laparoscopic or open appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis beyond the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is above the level of the umbilicus, depending on the preference and expertise of the surgeon. CONCLUSION: Through a structured, evidence-informed approach, an interdisciplinary panel provides a strong recommendation to perform appendectomy for complicated appendicitis or appendicolith, and laparoscopic or open appendectomy beyond the 20th week, based on the surgeon's preference and expertise. GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER: IPGRP-2022CN210.

Management of Acutely Symptomatic Hernia (MASH) study.

BACKGROUND: Acutely symptomatic abdominal wall and groin hernias are a common reason for acute surgical hospital admissions. There are limited data to guide the treatment of these patients. This study aimed to assess outcomes of emergency hernia surgery and identify common management strategies, to improve care for these high-risk patients. METHODS: A 20-week, national multicentre, collaborative, prospective cohort study (NCT04197271) recruited adults with acutely symptomatic abdominal wall and groin hernias across the UK. Data on patient characteristics, inpatient management, quality of life, complications, and wound healing were collected. Follow-up telephone calls at 30 and 90 days were used to assessed complications and quality of life. Descriptive analyses were undertaken to describe the population and outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-three hospitals recruited 272 eligible patients. Inguinal (37.8 per cent) and umbilical (37.1 per cent) hernias were the most common. Some 13.9 per cent were awaiting elective surgery and 12.8 per cent had previously declined intervention. CT was performed in 47.1 per cent and 81.3 per cent underwent surgical management. Open repairs were carried out in 93.5 per cent, and 92.5 per cent of these were performed under general anaesthesia. Four of 13 laparoscopic procedures were converted to open surgery. Mesh was used in 55.1 per cent of repairs, typically synthetic non-absorbable (87.4 per cent). Complications were infrequent; surgical-site infection (9.4 per cent), delirium (3.2 per cent), and pneumonia (2.3 per cent) were the most common. The 90-day mortality rate was 4.9 per cent. Immediate surgical management was associated with a significant improvement in quality of life at 30 days (median score 0.73-0.82). CONCLUSION: There is variation in the investigation, management, and surgical technique used to treat acutely symptomatic abdominal wall and groin hernias in the UK. The optimal management strategy for specific acute presentations remains to be established. Presented to the Association of Surgeons in Training Conference, Birmingham, UK, March 2021, the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland Congress, May 2021, the World Society of Emergency Surgery, Edinburgh, UK, September 2021, and the European Hernia Society Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 2021.

Artificial intelligence as a diagnostic aid in cross-sectional radiological imaging of the abdominopelvic cavity: a protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies as a diagnostic aid in healthcare is increasing. Benefits include applications to improve health systems, such as rapid and accurate interpretation of medical images. This may improve the performance of diagnostic, prognostic and management decisions. While a large amount of work has been undertaken discussing the role of AI little is understood regarding the performance of such applications in the clinical setting. This systematic review aims to critically appraise the diagnostic performance of AI algorithms to identify disease from cross-sectional radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity, to identify current limitations and inform future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted on Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant studies. Primary studies where AI-based technologies have been used as a diagnostic aid in cross-sectional radiological images of the abdominopelvic cavity will be included. Diagnostic accuracy of AI models, including reported sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve will be examined and compared with standard practice. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Findings will be reported according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required as primary data will not be collected. The results will inform further research studies in this field. Findings will be disseminated at relevant conferences, on social media and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021237249.

Use of prophylactic mesh during initial stoma creation to prevent parastomal herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIM: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication following stoma creation. Previous reviews found mesh reinforcement during initial stoma creation beneficial in reducing PSH incidence. Since then, several multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) produced widely ranging results rendering previous findings debatable. This current review assessed whether combining the latest larger multicentre RCTs would alter the previous findings. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase were searched from the respective dates of inception until 15 January 2021. RCTs were included if they compared mesh with no mesh during initial stoma creation in adult patients to prevent PSH. Included RCTs were summarised narratively and meta-analysed to estimate the relative risk (RR) of PSH incidence (primary analysis), peristomal complications and PSH repair (secondary analyses). Several subgroup analyses were performed, including mesh type (synthetic/biologic), surgical technique (open/laparoscopic) and mesh position (sublay/intraperitoneal). RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were included in the primary meta-analysis (1070 patients); PSH incidence was reduced in patients with mesh compared with patients without mesh at maximal follow-up (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.77; I2  = 67%; P < 0.01). The number of PSH repairs was fewer in patients who had mesh (RR = 0.63; 0.35-1.14; I2  = 6%; P = 0.39), with no difference in peristomal complications (RR = 0.96; 0.55-1.70; I2  = 0%; P = 0.71), comparing with no mesh. Subgroup analyses suggested that placing synthetic mesh using an open sublay technique might be more beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic mesh reinforcement during initial stoma creation reduces PSH incidence and potentially its repair, without an increase in peristomal complications. However, substantial heterogeneity among included RCTs limits confidence in the results.