Small bites versus large bites during fascial closure of midline laparotomies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Incisional ventral hernias (IVH) are common after laparotomies, with up to 20% incidence in 12 months, increasing up to 60% at 3-5 years. Although Small Bites (SB) is the standard technique for fascial closure in laparotomies, its adoption in the United States is limited, and Large Bites (LB) is still commonly performed. We aim to assess the effectiveness of SB regarding IVH. METHODS: We searched for RCTs and observational studies on Cochrane, EMBASE, and PubMed from inception to May 2023. We selected patients ≥ 18 years old, undergoing midline laparotomies, comparing SB and LB for IVH, surgical site infections (SSI), fascial dehiscence, hospital stay, and closure duration. We used RevMan 5.4. and RStudio for statistics. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics, and random effect was used if I2 > 25%. RESULTS: 1687 studies were screened, 45 reviewed, and 6 studies selected, including 3 RCTs and 3351 patients (49% received SB and 51% LB). SB showed fewer IVH (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.74; P < 0.001) and SSI (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53-0.86; P = 0.002), shorter hospital stay (MD -1.36 days; 95% CI -2.35, -0.38; P = 0.007), and longer closure duration (MD 4.78 min; 95% CI 3.21-6.35; P < 0.001). No differences were seen regarding fascial dehiscence. CONCLUSION: SB technique has lower incidence of IVH at 1-year follow-up, less SSI, shorter hospital stay, and longer fascial closure duration when compared to the LB. SB should be the technique of choice during midline laparotomies.

Strength of small-bites abdominal wall closure using different suturing methods and materials in an experimental animal model.

PURPOSE: Using small instead of large bites for laparotomy closure results in lower incidence of incisional hernia, but no consensus exists on which suture material to use. This study aimed to compare five different closure strategies in a standardized experimental setting. METHODS: Fifty porcine abdominal walls were arranged into 5 groups: (A) running 2/0 polydioxanone; (B) interlocking 2/0 polydioxanone; (C) running size 0 barbed polydioxanone; (D) running size 0 barbed glycolic acid and trimethylene carbonate; (E) running size 0 suturable polypropylene mesh. The small-bites technique was used for linea alba closure in all. The abdominal walls were divided into a supra- and infra-umbilical half, resulting in 20 specimens per group that were pulled apart in a tensile testing machine. Maximum tensile force and types of suture failure were registered. RESULTS: The highest tensile force was measured when using barbed polydioxanone (334.8 N ± 157.0), but differences did not reach statistical significance. Infra-umbilical abdominal walls endured a significantly higher maximum tensile force compared to supra-umbilical (397 N vs 271 N, p < 0.001). Barbed glycolic acid and trimethylene carbonate failed significantly more often (25% vs 0%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Based on tensile force, both interlocking and running suture techniques using polydioxanone, and running sutures using barbed polydioxanone or suturable mesh, seem to be suitable for abdominal wall closure. Tensile strength was significantly higher in infra-umbilical abdominal walls compared to supra-umbilical. Barbed glycolic acid and trimethylene carbonate should probably be discouraged for fascial closure, because of increased risk of suture failure.

[Incisional hernias: epidemiology, evidence and guidelines]. / Narbenhernien: Epidemiologie, Evidenz und Leitlinien.

BACKGROUND: From an epidemiological point of view, one third of the population in industrialized countries will undergo abdominal surgery during their lifetime. Depending on the degree of patient-related and procedure-related risks, the occurrence of incisional hernias is associated in a range of up to 30% at 2­year follow-up and even up to 60% at 5 years. In addition to influencing comorbidities, the type of surgical approach and closure technique are of critical importance. OBJECTIVE: To present a descriptive evidence-based recommendation for abdominal wall closure and prophylactic mesh augmentation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A concise summary was prepared incorporating the current literature and existing guidelines. RESULTS: According to recent studies the recognized risk for the occurrence of incisional hernias in the presence of obesity and abdominal aortic diseases also applies to patients undergoing colorectal surgery and the presence of diastasis recti abdominis. Based on high-level published data, the short stitch technique for midline laparotomy in the elective setting has a high level of evidence to be a standard procedure. Patients with an increased risk profile should receive prophylactic mesh reinforcement, either onlay or sublay, in addition to the short stitch technique. In emergency laparotomy, the individual risk of infection with respect to the closure technique used must be included. CONCLUSION: The avoidance of incisional hernias is primarily achieved by the minimally invasive access for laparoscopy. For closure of the most commonly used midline approach, the short stitch technique and, in the case of existing risk factors, additionally mesh augmentation are recommended.

Optimal tentative abdominal closure for open abdomen: a multicenter retrospective observational study (OPTITAC study).

BACKGROUND: Primary fascia closure is often difficult following an open abdomen (OA). While negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is recommended to enhance successful primary fascia closure, the optimal methods and degree of negative pressure remain unclear. This study aimed to elucidate optimal methods of NPWT as a tentative abdominal closure for OA to achieve primary abdominal fascia closure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, cohort study of adults who survived OA greater than 48 h was conducted in 12 institutions between 2010 and 2022. The achievement of primary fascia closure and incidence of enteroatmospheric fistula were examined based on methods (homemade, superficial NPWT kit, or open-abdomen kit) or degrees of negative pressure (<50, 50-100, or >100 mmHg). A generalized estimating equation was used to adjust for age, BMI, comorbidities, etiology for laparotomy requiring OA, vital signs, transfusion, severity of critical illness, and institutional characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 279 included patients, 252 achieved primary fascia closure. A higher degree of negative pressure (>100 mmHg) was associated with fewer primary fascia closures than less than 50 mmHg [OR, 0.18 (95% CI: 0.50-0.69), P =0.012] and with more frequent enteroatmospheric fistula [OR, 13.83 (95% CI: 2.30-82.93)]. The methods of NPWT were not associated with successful primary fascia closure. However, the use of the open-abdomen kit was related to a lower incidence of enteroatmospheric fistula [OR, 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00-0.50)]. CONCLUSION: High negative pressure (>100 mmHg) should be avoided in NPWT during tentative abdominal closure for OA.

Small bite versus large bite stitching technique for midline laparotomy wound closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mass closure with a continuous suture using large bite stitching technique has been widely accepted for midline laparotomy wound closures. However, emerging evidence suggests the use of small bite technique to reduce rates of incisional ventral hernia, surgical site infection (SSI) and burst abdomen. This meta-analysis aims to compare small versus large bite stitching techniques to assess complication rates in midline laparotomy wound closures. A comprehensive multi-database search (OVID EBM Reviews, OVID Medline, EMBASE, Scopus) was conducted from database inception to 11th October 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines. We included studies comparing post-operative complication rates of small bite versus large bite stitching techniques for midline laparotomy wound closure. Extracted data was pooled for meta-analysis evaluating rates of incisional ventral hernia, SSI and burst abdomen. We included five randomized controlled trials (RCT) in the meta-analysis and three prospective cohort studies for qualitative analysis. A total of 1977 participants composed of 961 small bite and 1016 large bite technique patients were included from the five RCTs. There was a significant reduction in the rates of incisional ventral hernia and SSI with the small bite stitch technique with odds ratios (OR) of 0.39 (95% CI [0.21-0.71]) and 0.68 (95% CI [0.51-0.91]) respectively, and a trend in favour of reduced incidence of burst abdomen with OR of 0.60 (95% CI [0.15-2.48]). Small bite stitch technique in midline laparotomy wound closure may be superior over conventional mass closure using the large bite stitch technique, with statistically significant lower rates of incisional ventral hernia and SSI.

Prevention of incisional hernia after kidney transplantation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a common complication after kidney transplantation with an incidence of 1.6-18%. Concerning non-transplant patients, a recently published meta-analysis describes a reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia of up to 85% due to prophylactic mesh replacement in elective, midline laparotomy. The aim of our study is to show a reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia after kidney transplantation with minimal risk for complication. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing time to incisional hernia over a period of 24 months between patients undergoing kidney transplantation and standardized abdominal closure with or without prophylactic placement of ProGrip™ (Medtronic, Fridley, MN, USA) mesh in an onlay position. As we believe that the mesh intervention is superior to the standard procedure in reducing the incidence of hernia, this is a superiority trial. DISCUSSION: The high risk for developing incisional hernia following kidney transplantation might be reduced by prophylactic mesh placement. ProGrip™ mesh features polylactic acid (PLA) microgrips that provide immediate, strong and uniform fixation. The use of this mesh combines the effectiveness demonstrated by the macropore propylene meshes in the treatment of incisional hernias, a high simplicity of use provided by its capacity for self-fixation that does not increase significantly surgery time, and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04794582. Registered on 08 March 2021. Protocol version 2.0. (02-18-2021).

Abdominal wound dehiscence and incisional hernia prevention in midline laparotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) is the main complication after laparotomy. In an attempt to reduce this complication, mesh techniques and studies in which the closure technique is modified have been proposed. Both types are characterized by comparison with the closure described as standard or conventional: 1 × 1, mass, and continuous closure. For this study, modified closure techniques (MCTs) were considered as those techniques in which an extra suture is placed (reinforced tension line (RTL), retention), the closure point is modified in distance (small bites) or shape (CLDC, Smead Jones, interrupted, Cardiff point) and which aim to reduce these complications. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate the effectiveness of MCTs for reducing the incidence of IH and abdominal wound dehiscence (AWD) to provide objective support for their recommendation. METHODS: An NMA was performed according to the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of IH and AWD, and the secondary objective was to determine the incidence of postoperative complications. Only published clinical trials were included. The risk of bias was analyzed, and the random-effects model was used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Twelve studies comparing 3540 patients were included. The incidence of HI was lower in RTL, retention suture, and small bites, these techniques showed statistical differences with pooled ORs (95% CI) of 0.28 (0.09-0.83), 0.28 (0.13-0.62), and 0.44 (0.31-0.62), respectively. Associated complications, including hematoma, seroma, and postoperative pain, could not be analyzed; however, MCTs did not increase the risk of surgical site infection. CONCLUSION: Small bites, RTL, and retention sutures decreased the prevalence of IH. RTL and retention suture decreased the prevalence of AWD. RTL was the best technique as it reduced both complications (IH and AWD) and had the best SUCRA and P-scores, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for net effect was 3. REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42021231107.

Hernia Prevention Using Biologic Mesh and/or Small Bites: A Multispecialty 2 × 2 Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ventral incisional hernias are the most common complication after abdominal operation. Randomized trials have shown efficacy of prophylactic synthetic mesh and small bites. Adoption of these practices has been limited due to concerns with placement of synthetic mesh in contaminated cases and small bites in an overweight population. We sought to assess the efficacy of prophylactic biologic mesh and small bites to prevent postoperative major complications: ventral incisional hernias, surgical site infection, reoperation, and death. STUDY DESIGN: High-risk patients (overweight/obese, current smoker) undergoing abdominal operation with a midline incision (5 cm or greater) were randomized (2 × 2 factorial trial) to receive either sublay biologic mesh or no mesh and either small bites (0.5 × 0. 5cm) or large bites (1 × 1 cm) fascial closure. The primary outcome measure was major complications at 1 year postoperative. CONSORT guidelines were followed, and this study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03148496). Assuming α = 0.05, ß = 0.20, and Δ = 20%, it was estimated that 105 patients were needed. Primary outcome was assessed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were randomized: 52 (49%) to mesh, 55 (51%) to no mesh, 55 (51%) to small bites, and 52 (49%) to large bites. Of the patients, 16% were smokers, 31% were overweight, and 55% were obese. At 1 year postoperative, there were no differences in major complications between groups (mesh vs no mesh 21% vs 16%, p = 0.62; small vs large bites 18% vs 19%, p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, biologic mesh and small bites appear to have no benefit. Further randomized trials are needed among high-risk patients before widespread adoption of prophylactic biologic mesh or small bites.

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).

ECLAPTE: Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency-2023 World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines for the closure of laparotomy in emergency settings.

Laparotomy incisions provide easy and rapid access to the peritoneal cavity in case of emergency surgery. Incisional hernia (IH) is a late manifestation of the failure of abdominal wall closure and represents frequent complication of any abdominal incision: IHs can cause pain and discomfort to the patients but also clinical serious sequelae like bowel obstruction, incarceration, strangulation, and necessity of reoperation. Previous guidelines and indications in the literature consider elective settings and evidence about laparotomy closure in emergency settings is lacking. This paper aims to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) project called ECLAPTE (Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency): the final manuscript includes guidelines on the closure of emergency laparotomy.

[Surgical wound closure in advanced peritonitis]. / Sposoby zakrytiya operatsionnoi rany pri rasprostranennom peritonite.

To date, mortality in widespread peritonitis is still high (15-20%) and increased up to 70-80% in case of septic shock. Surgeons actively discuss wound closure technique in these patients considering intraoperative findings and severity of illness. The authors present scientific data and opinions of national and foreign surgeons regarding the methods of laparotomy closure. There are still no generally accepted criteria for choosing the method of laparotomy closure in secondary widespread peritonitis. Indications and clinical efficacy of each procedure require additional research.

The effect on incisional hernia of absorbable barbed suture for midline fascial closure in minimally invasive surgery for colorectal and gastric cancers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia following abdominal surgery is a frequent complication of midline laparotomy. This complication is strongly associated with the technique and material used for suture. While a monofilament absorbable suture is recommended to prevent incisional hernia, it can lead to suture loosening or surgical-knot breakage. Although barbed sutures can be an alternative suture material in abdominal fascial closure, evidence for its safety and effectiveness is lacking. Therefore, we designed a prospective randomized trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of absorbable barbed sutures for midline fascia closure in minimally invasive surgery for colorectal and gastric cancers in comparison with conventional absorbable monofilament sutures. METHODS: A total of 312 patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery for colorectal and gastric cancers will be randomly allocated to either the absorbable barbed or monofilament suture group for abdominal fascia closure in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is incisional hernia rate within 3 years after surgery, as verified by physical examination and computed tomography. Postoperative complications, including surgical site infection, postoperative pain, and quality of life, will be compared between two groups as secondary outcomes. The investigator will examine the patients until discharge and at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare absorbable barbed sutures with monofilament sutures for midline fascia closure in minimally invasive surgery. If absorbable barbed sutures demonstrate superior results to those of monofilament sutures, this type of suture material may be recommended as an alternative option for abdominal fascia closure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: KCT0007069. Registered on January 30, 2023.

"Happy to close?" The relationship between surgical experience and incisional hernia rates following abdominal wall closure in colorectal surgery.

AIM: Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication of colorectal surgery, affecting up to 30% of patients at 2 years. Given the associated morbidity and high recurrence rates after attempted repair of IH, emphasis should be placed on prevention. There is an association between surgeon volume and outcomes in hernia surgery, yet there is little evidence regarding impact of the seniority of the surgeon performing abdominal wall closure on IH rate. The aim of our study was to assess the rates of IH at 1 year following abdominal wall closure between junior and senior surgeons in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: This was an exploratory analysis of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal cancer between 2014-2018 as part of the Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART), a prospective, multicentre randomised control trial comparing abdominal wall closure methods. Grade of surgeon performing abdominal closure was categorised into "trainee" and "consultant" and compared to IH rate at one year. RESULTS: A total of 663 patients were included in this retrospective analysis of patients in the HART trial. The rate of IH in patients closed by trainees was 20%, compared to 12% in those closed by consultants (p = <0.001). When comparing closure methods, IH rates were significantly higher in the Hughes closure arm between trainees and consultants (20% vs. 12%, p = 0.032), but not high enough in the mass closure arm to reach statistical significance (21% vs. 13%, p = 0.058). On multivariate analysis, age (p = 0.036, OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.04), Male sex (p = 0.049, OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.00-2.59) and closure by a trainee (p = 0.006, OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.20-2.85) were identified as risk factors for developing IH. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo abdominal wall closure by a surgeon in training have an increased risk of developing IH when compared to those closed by a consultant. Further work is needed to determine the impact of supervised and unsupervised trainees on IH rates, but abdominal wall closure should be regarded as a training opportunity in its own right.

Does onlay mesh placement in emergency laparotomy prevent incisional hernia? A prospective randomized double-blind study.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness and safety of onlay mesh closure of emergency midline laparotomy to prevent incisional hernia. METHODS: This is a prospective randomized double-blind study and was carried out in the General Surgery Clinic, Konya City Hospital, from August 1, 2020 to August, 1, 2021. The study included 108 patients who were randomly grouped in 2 groups: patients with conventional abdominal closure and closure using additional onlay mesh (1:1). The follow-up period was for a year. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia and secondary outcomes were clinical data like complications, hospital length of stay, re-operations. RESULTS: It was observed that incisional hernia was present in 14 patients (27.4%) in conventional abdominal closure group and was in 2 patients using mesh (4%), (p = 0.001). Clavien-Dindo 3B complications were in rise in conventional closure group (p = 0.02). Of all complications, burst abdomen was significantly more common in conventional closure group (p = 0.04). The rate of surgically treated complications were higher in conventional closure group (p = 0.02). Clavien-Dindo 3A complications were more common in patients with contaminated wound in mesh group (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The use of mesh while closing the abdomen in emergency midline laparotomy reduces the risk of incisional hernia. Thus, to lower the risks of incisional hernia and its complications, prophylactic mesh can be used in high-risk patients.

Prophylactic effect of retromuscular mesh placement during loop ileostomy closure on incisional hernia incidence-a multicentre randomised patient- and observer-blind trial (P.E.L.I.O.N trial).

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication following loop ileostomy reversal. Incisional hernias are associated with morbidity, loss of health-related quality of life and costs and warrant the investigation of prophylactic measures. Prophylactic mesh implantation at the time of surgical stoma reversal has shown to be a promising and safe method to prevent incisional hernias in this setting. However, the efficacy of this method has not yet been investigated in a large multicentre randomised-controlled trial (RCT) with adequate external validity. The P.E.L.I.O.N. trial will evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after loop ileostomy closure in decreasing the rate of incisional hernia versus standard closure alone. METHODS: P.E.L.I.O.N. is a multicentre, patient- and observer-blind RCT. Patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure will undergo intraoperative 1:1 randomisation into either abdominal wall closure with a continuous slowly absorbable suture in small-stitch technique without mesh reinforcement (control group) or abdominal wall closure with an additional reinforcement with a retromuscular non-absorbable, macro-pore (pore size ≥ 1000 µm or effective porosity >0%) light-weight monofilament or mixed structure mesh. A total of 304 patients (152 per group) will need to be randomised in the study. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1,014 patients are expected to be screened for eligibility in order to recruit the necessary number of patients. The primary endpoint will be the frequency of incision hernias within 24 months according to the European Hernia Society definition. Secondary endpoints will be the frequency of surgical site occurrences (including surgical site infections, wound seromas and hematomas, and enterocutaneous fistulas), postoperative pain, the number of revision surgeries and health-related quality of life. Safety will be assessed by measuring postoperative complications ≥ grade 3 according to the Dindo-Clavien classification. DISCUSSION: Depending on the results of the P.E.L.I.O.N. trial, prophylactic mesh implantation could become the new standard for loop ileostomy reversal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00027921, U1111-1273-4657.

Chemotherapy and Abdominal Wall Closure Technique Increase the Probability of Postoperative Ventral Incisional Hernia in Patients With Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is associated with postoperative ventral incisional hernia (PVIH) after right hemicolectomy (RHC) for colon cancer, and abdominal wall closure technique may affect PVIH. We sought to identify clinical predictors of PVIH. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent RHC for colon cancer from 2008-2018 and later developed PVIH. Time to PVIH was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier analysis, clinical predictors were identified with multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling, and the probability of PVIH given chemotherapy and the suture technique was estimated with Bayesian analysis. RESULTS: We identified 399 patients (209 no adjuvant chemotherapy and 190 adjuvant chemotherapy), with an overall PVIH rate of 38%. The 5-year PVIH rate was 55% for adjuvant chemotherapy, compared with 38% for none (log-rank P < .05). Adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-2.31, P < .01), age (HR .99, 95% CI .97-1.00, P < .01), body mass index (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, P < .01), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.21-3.00, P < .01) were independently associated with PVIH. Postoperative ventral incisional hernia was more common overall in patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy (46% compared with 30%, P < .01). In patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, the probability of PVIH for incision closure with #1 running looped polydioxanone was 42%, compared with 59% for incision closure with #0 single interrupted polyglactin 910. DISCUSSION: Exposure to chemotherapy increases the probability of PVIH after RHC, and non-short stitch incision closure further increases this probability, more so than age or body mass index. The suture technique deserves further study as a modifiable factor in this high-risk population.

Impact of negative pressure wound therapy on enteroatmospheric fistulation in the septic open abdomen.

AIM: The effect of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on the pathogenesis and outcome of enteroatmospheric fistulation (EAF) in the septic open abdomen (OA) is unclear. This study compares the development and outcome of EAF following NPWT with that occurring in the absence of NPWT. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted with EAF following abdominal sepsis at a National Reference Centre for intestinal failure between 01 January 2005 and 31 December 2015 were included in this study. Patients were divided into two groups based on those that had been treated with NPWT and those that had not (non-NPWT) and characteristics of their fistulas compared. Clinical outcomes concerning nutritional autonomy at 4 years and time to fistula development, size of abdominal wall defect and complete fistula closure were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were admitted with EAF following a septic abdomen (31-NPWT and 129-non-NPWT). Median (range) time taken to fistulation after OA was longer with NPWT (18 [5-113] vs. 8 [2-60] days, p = 0.004); these patients developed a greater number of fistulas (3 [2-21] vs. 2 [1-10], p = 0.01), involving a greater length of small bowel (42.5 [15-100] cm vs. 30 [3.5-170] cm, p = 0.04) than those who did not receive NPWT. Following reconstructive surgery, nutritional autonomy was similar in both groups (77% vs. 72%) and a comparable number of patients were also fistula-free (100% vs. 97%). CONCLUSIONS: Negative pressure wound therapy appears to be associated with more complex and delayed intestinal fistulation, involving a greater length of small intestine in the septic OA. This did not, however, appear to adversely affect the overall outcome of intestinal and abdominal wall reconstruction in this study.

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement for midline incisional hernia prevention: systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication after abdominal surgery. Prevention of IH is matter of intense research. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) has been shown to be promising in the minimization of IH risk after elective midline laparotomy. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PMR vs. primary suture closure (PSC). Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (MD) were used as pooled effect size measures whereas 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were used to assess relative inference. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (2332 patients) were included. Overall, 1280 (54.9%) underwent PMR while 1052 (45.1%) PSC. Postoperative follow-up ranged from 12 to 67 months. The incidence of IH was reduced for PMR vs. PSC (13.4% vs. 27.5%). The estimated pooled IH RR for PMR vs. PSC is 0.38 (95% CI 0.24-0.58; p < 0.001). Stratified subgroup analysis according to mesh location shows a risk reduction for intraperitoneal (RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.48-0.89), preperitoneal (RR = 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.81), retromuscular (RR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.24-0.92) and onlay (RR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.51) compared to PSC. The seroma RR was higher for PMR (RR = 2.05; p = 0.0008). No differences were found for hematoma (RR = 1.49; p = 0.34), surgical site infection (SSI) (RR = 1.17; p = 0.38), operative time (OT) (MD = 0.27; p = 0.413), and hospital length of stay (HLOS) (MD = -0.03; p = 0.237). CONCLUSIONS: PMR seems effective in reducing the risk of IH after elective midline laparotomy compared to PSC in the medium-term follow-up. While the risk of postoperative seroma appears higher for PMR, hematoma, SSI, HLOS and OT seems comparable.

Abdominal subcutaneous obesity and the risk of burst abdomen: a matched case-control study.

PURPOSE: The causes of burst abdomen after midline laparotomy remain uncertain. Obesity is a suspected risk factor. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between abdominal subcutaneous obesity (ASO) and burst abdomen in patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, retrospective, matched case-control study of patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy from May 2016 to August 2021. Patients suffering from burst abdomen were matched 1:4 with controls based on age and sex. Abdominal wall closure was standardized in the study period with the small bites, small stitches technique. ASO was defined as the highest sex-specific quartile (≥ 75%) of subcutaneous fat layer evaluated on CT. The primary outcome was the association between ASO and burst abdomen, stratified between cases and controls. Secondary outcomes included 30- and 90-day mortality, length of stay, and suspected risk factors of burst abdomen, assessed by multivariate analysis across cases and controls. RESULTS: A total of 475 patients were included in this study, with 95 cases matched to 380 controls. Liver cirrhosis, active smoking, and high alcohol consumption were more common among cases in an unadjusted analysis. Liver cirrhosis (odds ratio (OR) 3.32, p = 0.045) and active smoking (OR 1.98, p = 0.009) remained significant in a multivariate analysis and were associated with burst abdomen. One hundred twenty-four patients had ASO. ASO was not significantly associated with burst abdomen (OR 1.11, p = 0.731). CONCLUSION: ASO was not found to be associated with an increased risk of burst abdomen after emergency midline laparotomy.