Prophylactic mesh after midline laparotomy : evidence is out there, but why do surgeons hesitate?
- Author
- Martijn Depuydt, Mathias Allaeys (UGent) , LUIS ABREU DE CARVALHO (UGent) , Aude Vanlander and Frederik Berrevoet (UGent)
- Organization
- Abstract
- Background Incisional hernias have an impact on patients' quality of life and on health care finances. Because of high recurrence rates despite mesh repair, the prevention of incisional hernias with prophylactic mesh reinforcement is currently a topic of interest. But only 15% of surgeons are implementing it, mainly because of fear for mesh complications and disbelief in the benefits. The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mesh in adult patients after midline laparotomy. Methods An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL until 9/5/2020 for RCTs and cohort studies regarding mesh reinforcement versus primary suture closure of a midline laparotomy. The quality of the articles was analyzed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. Revman 5 was used to perform a meta-analysis. Results Twenty-three articles were found with a total of 1633 patients in the mesh reinforcement group and 1533 in the primary suture group. An odds ratio for incisional hernia incidence of 0.37 (95% CI = [0.30, 0.46], p < 0.01) with RCTs and of 0.15 (95% CI = [0.09,0.25], p < 0.01) in cohort studies was calculated. Seroma rate shows a significant odds ratio of 2.18 (95% CI = [1.45, 3.29], p < 0.01) in favor of primary suture. No increase was found regarding other complications. Conclusion The evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh reinforcement is overwhelming with a significant reduction in incisional hernia rate, but implementation in daily clinical practice remains limited. Instead of putting patients at risk for incisional hernia formation and subsequent complications, surgeons should question their arguments why not to use mesh reinforcement, specifically in high-risk patients.
Downloads
-
(...).pdf
- full text (Published version)
- |
- UGent only
- |
- |
- 1.44 MB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8708836
- MLA
- Depuydt, Martijn, et al. “Prophylactic Mesh after Midline Laparotomy : Evidence Is out There, but Why Do Surgeons Hesitate?” WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, vol. 45, no. 5, 2021, pp. 1349–61, doi:10.1007/s00268-020-05898-0.
- APA
- Depuydt, M., Allaeys, M., ABREU DE CARVALHO, L., Vanlander, A., & Berrevoet, F. (2021). Prophylactic mesh after midline laparotomy : evidence is out there, but why do surgeons hesitate? WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 45(5), 1349–1361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05898-0
- Chicago author-date
- Depuydt, Martijn, Mathias Allaeys, LUIS ABREU DE CARVALHO, Aude Vanlander, and Frederik Berrevoet. 2021. “Prophylactic Mesh after Midline Laparotomy : Evidence Is out There, but Why Do Surgeons Hesitate?” WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY 45 (5): 1349–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05898-0.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- Depuydt, Martijn, Mathias Allaeys, LUIS ABREU DE CARVALHO, Aude Vanlander, and Frederik Berrevoet. 2021. “Prophylactic Mesh after Midline Laparotomy : Evidence Is out There, but Why Do Surgeons Hesitate?” WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY 45 (5): 1349–1361. doi:10.1007/s00268-020-05898-0.
- Vancouver
- 1.Depuydt M, Allaeys M, ABREU DE CARVALHO L, Vanlander A, Berrevoet F. Prophylactic mesh after midline laparotomy : evidence is out there, but why do surgeons hesitate? WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY. 2021;45(5):1349–61.
- IEEE
- [1]M. Depuydt, M. Allaeys, L. ABREU DE CARVALHO, A. Vanlander, and F. Berrevoet, “Prophylactic mesh after midline laparotomy : evidence is out there, but why do surgeons hesitate?,” WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1349–1361, 2021.
@article{8708836,
abstract = {{Background Incisional hernias have an impact on patients' quality of life and on health care finances. Because of high recurrence rates despite mesh repair, the prevention of incisional hernias with prophylactic mesh reinforcement is currently a topic of interest. But only 15% of surgeons are implementing it, mainly because of fear for mesh complications and disbelief in the benefits. The goal of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic mesh in adult patients after midline laparotomy. Methods An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL until 9/5/2020 for RCTs and cohort studies regarding mesh reinforcement versus primary suture closure of a midline laparotomy. The quality of the articles was analyzed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. Revman 5 was used to perform a meta-analysis. Results Twenty-three articles were found with a total of 1633 patients in the mesh reinforcement group and 1533 in the primary suture group. An odds ratio for incisional hernia incidence of 0.37 (95% CI = [0.30, 0.46], p < 0.01) with RCTs and of 0.15 (95% CI = [0.09,0.25], p < 0.01) in cohort studies was calculated. Seroma rate shows a significant odds ratio of 2.18 (95% CI = [1.45, 3.29], p < 0.01) in favor of primary suture. No increase was found regarding other complications. Conclusion The evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh reinforcement is overwhelming with a significant reduction in incisional hernia rate, but implementation in daily clinical practice remains limited. Instead of putting patients at risk for incisional hernia formation and subsequent complications, surgeons should question their arguments why not to use mesh reinforcement, specifically in high-risk patients.}},
author = {{Depuydt, Martijn and Allaeys, Mathias and ABREU DE CARVALHO, LUIS and Vanlander, Aude and Berrevoet, Frederik}},
issn = {{0364-2313}},
journal = {{WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{5}},
pages = {{1349--1361}},
title = {{Prophylactic mesh after midline laparotomy : evidence is out there, but why do surgeons hesitate?}},
url = {{http://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05898-0}},
volume = {{45}},
year = {{2021}},
}
- Altmetric
- View in Altmetric
- Web of Science
- Times cited: