Search

Background: The optimal management and timing of the abdominal wall reconstruction concomitantly performed with stoma closure are controversial. This study aims to compare short-term postoperative outcomes after concurrent stoma reversal (SR) with incisional hernia repair (IHR) and SR alone., Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science databases were consulted to identify comparative studies. Random and common-effect models were used for the pooled analysis of the proportions and means., Results: Three studies met the inclusion criteria and a total of 504 patients who underwent simultaneous SR and IHR (N.=200) or SR alone (N.=304) were included in the meta-analysis. Postoperative morbidity increased after combined stoma and hernia surgery with a pooled OR for Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO) and severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III) of 1.72 (95% CI 1.02-2.90) and 3.83 (95% CI 1.46-10.02), respectively. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of mortality (OR: 1.66; 95% CI 0.64-4.27), length of hospital stay (OR: 1.37; 95% CI 0.73-3.47). and readmission rate (OR: 1.17; 95% CI 0.67-2.06)., Conclusions: There is limited evidence suggesting that synchronous repair of SR and IH appears to be associated with a higher risk of SSO and severe postoperative complications. Therefore, a stepwise approach may be considered the best strategy in this setting.

Purpose: To evaluate the incidence of incisional hernia in patients undergoing direct access to the abdominal cavity in urological surgery., Methods: We conducted a systematic review in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central from 1980 to the present according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Eighty-four studies were selected for inclusion in this analysis, and meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed., Results: The total incidence in the 84 studies was 4.8% (95% CI 3.7% - 6.2%) I 2 93.84%. Depending on the type of incision, it was higher in the open medial approach: 7.1% (95% CI 4.3%-11.8%) I 2 92.45% and lower in laparoscopic surgery: 1.9% (95% CI 1%-3.4%) I 2 71, 85% According to access, it was lower in retroperitoneal: 0.9% (95% CI 0.2%-4.8%) I 2 76.96% and off-midline: 4.7% (95% CI 3.5%-6.4%) I 2 91.59%. Regarding the location of the hernia, parastomal hernias were more frequent: 15.1% (95% CI 9.6% - 23%) I 2 77.39%. Meta-regression shows a significant effect in reducing the proportion of hernias in open lateral, laparoscopic and hand-assisted compared to medial open access., Conclusion: The present review finds the access through the midline and stomas as the ones with the highest incidence of incisional hernia. The use of the lateral approach or minimally invasive techniques is preferable. More prospective studies are warranted to obtain the real incidence of incisional hernias and evaluate the role of better techniques to close the abdomen., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Incisional hernia (IH) is a prevalent and potentially dangerous complication of abdominal surgery, especially in high-risk groups. Mesh reinforcement of the abdominal wall has been studied as a potential intervention to prevent IHs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that prophylactic mesh reinforcement after abdominal surgery, in general, is effective and safe. In patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), prophylactic mesh reinforcement after open repair has not yet been recommended in official guidelines, because of relatively small sample sizes in individual trials. Furthermore, the identification of subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh placement requires larger patient numbers. Our primary aim is to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the use of a prophylactic mesh after open AAA surgery to prevent IH by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA). Secondary aims include the evaluation of postoperative complications, pain and quality of life, and the identification of potential subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh reinforcement., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a systematic review to identify RCTs that study prophylactic mesh placement after open AAA surgery. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar will be searched from the date of inception onwards. RCTs must directly compare primary sutured closure with mesh closure in adult patients who undergo open AAA surgery. Lead authors of eligible studies will be asked to share individual participant data (IPD). The risk of bias (ROB) for each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane ROB tool. An IPDMA will be performed to evaluate the efficacy, with the IH rate as the primary outcome. Any signs of heterogeneity will be evaluated by Forest plots. Time-to-event analyses are performed using Cox regression analysis to evaluate risk factors., Ethics and Dissemination: No new data will be collected in this study. We will adhere to institutional, national and international regulations regarding the secure and confidential sharing of IPD, addressing ethics as indicated. We will disseminate findings via international conferences, open-source publications in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted online., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022347881., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Participating authors of the I-PREVENT study have previously worked on the PRIMA and PRIMAAT trials. These authors will be excluded from doing quality evaluation and data extraction of relevant trials. No further statements of competing interests need to be disclosed., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Minimally invasive abdominal wall surgery is growing worldwide, with a constant and fast improvement of surgical techniques and surgeons' confidence in treating both primary and incisional hernias (IH). The Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies (SICE) and the ISHAWS (Italian Society of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery) worked together to investigate state of the art in IH treatment in elective and emergency settings in Italy. An online open survey was designed, and Italian surgeons interested in abdominal wall surgery were invited to fill out a 20-point questionnaire on IH surgical procedures performed in their departments. Surgeons were asked to express their points of view on specific questions about technical and clinical variables in IH treatment. Preferred approach in elective IH surgery was minimally invasive (59.7%). Open surgery was the preferred approach in 40.3% of the responses. In emergency settings, open surgery was the preferred approach (65.4%); however, 34.5% of the involved surgeons declare to prefer the laparoscopic/endoscopic approach. Most respondents opted for conversion to open surgery in case of relevant surgical field contamination, with a non-mesh repair of abdominal wall defects. Among those that used the laparoscopic approach in the emergent setting, the majority (74%) used the size of the defect of 5 cm as a decisional cut-off. The spread of minimally invasive approaches to IH repair in emergency surgery in Italy is gaining relevance. Code-sharing through scientific societies can improve clinical practice in different departments and promote a tailored approach to IH surgery., (© 2023. Italian Society of Surgery (SIC).)

Background: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim of these updated guidelines was to provide recommendations to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia., Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed on 22 January 2022. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network instrument was used to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCTs, and cohort studies. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to appraise the certainty of the evidence. The guidelines group consisted of surgical specialists, a biomedical information specialist, certified guideline methodologist, and patient representative., Results: Thirty-nine papers were included covering seven key questions, and weak recommendations were made for all of these. Laparoscopic surgery and non-midline incisions are suggested to be preferred when safe and feasible. In laparoscopic surgery, suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus. For closure of an elective midline laparotomy, a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomy can be considered to reduce the risk of incisional hernia; a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position is advised., Conclusion: These updated guidelines may help surgeons in selecting the optimal approach and location of abdominal wall incisions., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)