• A Bhangu, J E Fitzgerald, P Singh, N Battersby, P Marriott, and T Pinkney.
• Academic Department of Surgery, Room 29, 4th Floor, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK. aneelbhangu@doctors.org.uk
• Hernia. 2013 Aug 1;17(4):445-55.

PurposeIncisional hernia is a common long-term complication after laparotomy. This study investigated whether prophylactic mesh reinforcement of laparotomy reduced the rate of incisional hernia, with emphasis on trial design and quality.MethodsA systematic review of published literature was performed for studies comparing incisional hernia presence following conventional closure or prophylactic mesh reinforcement. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the Jadad score and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary endpoint was incisional hernia, assessed by meta-analysis.ResultsSeven studies [four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three prospective trials] included 588 patients; 262 received mesh reinforcement. All studies included elective patients at high risk of incisional hernia. Six incorporated a polypropylene mesh and one a biologic mesh. Four studies were judged high quality by NOS and two of four RCTs were at low risk of bias, although overall outcome assessment from all studies was either poor or mediocre. Mesh significantly reduced the rate of incisional hernia [odds ratio (OR) 0.15, p < 0.001]; the same effect was seen in RCTs only (OR 0.17, p < 0.001). A borderline increase of seroma seen with a fixed effect model (OR 1.82, p = 0.050) was not seen with a random effect model (OR 1.86, p = 0.210, I (2) = 45 %).ConclusionMesh reinforcement of laparotomy significantly reduced the rate of incisional hernia in high-risk patients. However, poor assessment of secondary outcomes limits applicability; routine placement in all patients cannot yet be recommended. More evidence regarding the rates of adverse events, cost-benefits and quality of life are needed.

9 keywords...

hide…