Search

Background: Mesh repair in incarcerated or strangulated groin hernia is controversial, especially when bowel resection is required. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing mesh and non-mesh repair in patients undergoing emergency groin hernia repair. Methods: We performed a literature search of databases to identify studies comparing mesh and primary suture repair of patients with incarcerated or strangulated inguinal or femoral hernias who underwent emergency surgery. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Results: 1095 studies were screened and 101 were thoroughly reviewed. Twenty observational studies and four randomized controlled trials comprising 12,402 patients were included. We found that mesh-based repair had reduced recurrence (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.19, 0.67; P = 0.001; I2 = 35%), length of hospital stay (OR − 1.02; 95% CI − 1.87, − 0.17; P = 0.02; I2 = 94%) and operative time (OR − 9.21; 95% CI − 16.82, − 1.61; P = 0.02; I2 = 95%) without increasing surgical site infection, mortality or postoperative complications such as seroma, chronic, ileus or urinary retention. In the subgroup analysis of patients that underwent bowel resection, we found that mesh repair was associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.04, 2.91; P = 0.04; I2 = 9%). Conclusions: Mesh repair for incarcerated and strangulated groin hernias reduces recurrence without an increase in postoperative complications and should be considered in clean cases. However, in the setting of bowel resection, mesh repair might increase the incidence of surgical site infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Drain placement in retromuscular ventral hernia repair is controversial. Although it may reduce seroma formation, there is a concern regarding an increase in infectious complications. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis on retromuscular drain placement in retromuscular ventral hernia repair. Methods: We performed a literature search of Cochrane, Scopus and PubMed databases to identify studies comparing drain placement and the absence of drain in patients undergoing retromuscular ventral hernia repair. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Results: 3808 studies were screened and 48 were thoroughly reviewed. Four studies comprising 1724 patients were included in the analysis. We found that drain placement was significantly associated with a decrease in seroma (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.12–0.96; P = 0.04; I2 = 78%). Moreover, no differences were noted in surgical site infection, hematoma, surgical site occurrences or surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention. Conclusions: Based on the analysis of short-term outcomes, retromuscular drain placement after retromuscular ventral hernia repair significantly reduces seroma and does not increase infectious complications. Further prospective randomized studies are necessary to confirm our findings, evaluate the optimal duration of drain placement, and report longer-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: While the detrimental effects of smoking on postoperative outcomes are recognized, the extent of its risk for inguinal hernia repair remains unclear. Our study aims to assess the influence of smoking on patients who undergo inguinal hernia repair.We systematically reviewed PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Our goal was to identify studies that compared postoperative outcomes in smoking and non-smoking patients after inguinal hernia repair, and which employed a multivariate analysis to reduce possible confounding factors. Outcomes were recurrence, postoperative complications, and surgical site infection. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed with the use of a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023445513).Our analysis encompassed 11 studies, involving a total of 577,901 patients. Of these, 77,226 (or 13.4%) identified as smokers, with males constituting 90% of the cohort. In terms of surgical approaches, 58% underwent laparoscopic procedures were most common at 58%, followed by open surgeries at 41%, and 1% used robotic techniques. All included studies had a low risk of bias. Smoking was associated with a higher incidence of hernia recurrence (OR 2.95; 95% CI 2.08 to 4.18; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). No differences were found in postoperative complication (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.32; p = 0.05; I2 = 56%) or surgical site infection (OR 2.94; 95% CI 0.80 to 10.88; p = 0.11; I2 = 79%).Smoking was associated with a three-fold increase in recurrence. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of preoperative smoking cessation on reducing recurrence.Methods: While the detrimental effects of smoking on postoperative outcomes are recognized, the extent of its risk for inguinal hernia repair remains unclear. Our study aims to assess the influence of smoking on patients who undergo inguinal hernia repair.We systematically reviewed PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Our goal was to identify studies that compared postoperative outcomes in smoking and non-smoking patients after inguinal hernia repair, and which employed a multivariate analysis to reduce possible confounding factors. Outcomes were recurrence, postoperative complications, and surgical site infection. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed with the use of a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023445513).Our analysis encompassed 11 studies, involving a total of 577,901 patients. Of these, 77,226 (or 13.4%) identified as smokers, with males constituting 90% of the cohort. In terms of surgical approaches, 58% underwent laparoscopic procedures were most common at 58%, followed by open surgeries at 41%, and 1% used robotic techniques. All included studies had a low risk of bias. Smoking was associated with a higher incidence of hernia recurrence (OR 2.95; 95% CI 2.08 to 4.18; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). No differences were found in postoperative complication (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.32; p = 0.05; I2 = 56%) or surgical site infection (OR 2.94; 95% CI 0.80 to 10.88; p = 0.11; I2 = 79%).Smoking was associated with a three-fold increase in recurrence. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of preoperative smoking cessation on reducing recurrence.Results: While the detrimental effects of smoking on postoperative outcomes are recognized, the extent of its risk for inguinal hernia repair remains unclear. Our study aims to assess the influence of smoking on patients who undergo inguinal hernia repair.We systematically reviewed PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Our goal was to identify studies that compared postoperative outcomes in smoking and non-smoking patients after inguinal hernia repair, and which employed a multivariate analysis to reduce possible confounding factors. Outcomes were recurrence, postoperative complications, and surgical site infection. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed with the use of a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023445513).Our analysis encompassed 11 studies, involving a total of 577,901 patients. Of these, 77,226 (or 13.4%) identified as smokers, with males constituting 90% of the cohort. In terms of surgical approaches, 58% underwent laparoscopic procedures were most common at 58%, followed by open surgeries at 41%, and 1% used robotic techniques. All included studies had a low risk of bias. Smoking was associated with a higher incidence of hernia recurrence (OR 2.95; 95% CI 2.08 to 4.18; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). No differences were found in postoperative complication (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.32; p = 0.05; I2 = 56%) or surgical site infection (OR 2.94; 95% CI 0.80 to 10.88; p = 0.11; I2 = 79%).Smoking was associated with a three-fold increase in recurrence. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of preoperative smoking cessation on reducing recurrence.Conclusion: While the detrimental effects of smoking on postoperative outcomes are recognized, the extent of its risk for inguinal hernia repair remains unclear. Our study aims to assess the influence of smoking on patients who undergo inguinal hernia repair.We systematically reviewed PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Our goal was to identify studies that compared postoperative outcomes in smoking and non-smoking patients after inguinal hernia repair, and which employed a multivariate analysis to reduce possible confounding factors. Outcomes were recurrence, postoperative complications, and surgical site infection. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed with the use of a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023445513).Our analysis encompassed 11 studies, involving a total of 577,901 patients. Of these, 77,226 (or 13.4%) identified as smokers, with males constituting 90% of the cohort. In terms of surgical approaches, 58% underwent laparoscopic procedures were most common at 58%, followed by open surgeries at 41%, and 1% used robotic techniques. All included studies had a low risk of bias. Smoking was associated with a higher incidence of hernia recurrence (OR 2.95; 95% CI 2.08 to 4.18; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). No differences were found in postoperative complication (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.32; p = 0.05; I2 = 56%) or surgical site infection (OR 2.94; 95% CI 0.80 to 10.88; p = 0.11; I2 = 79%).Smoking was associated with a three-fold increase in recurrence. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of preoperative smoking cessation on reducing recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure is controversial. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the placement of prophylactic mesh during emergency laparotomy.We performed a systematic review of Cochrane, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify RCT comparing prophylactic mesh augmentation and no mesh augmentation in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. We excluded observational studies, conference abstracts, elective surgeries, overlapping populations, and trial protocols. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023412934).We screened 1312 studies and 33 were thoroughly reviewed. Four studies comprising 464 patients were included in the analysis. Mesh reinforcement was significantly associated with a decrease in incisional hernia incidence (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.07–0.44; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and synthetic mesh placement reduced fascial dehiscence (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01–0.53; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Mesh augmentation was associated with an increase in operative time (MD 32.09 min; 95% CI 6.39–57.78; p = 0.01; I2 = 49%) and seroma (OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.54–9.84; p = 0.004; I2 = 0%), but there was no difference in surgical-site infection or surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention or reoperation.Mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy decreases incisional hernia and fascial dehiscence incidence. Despite the risk of seroma, prophylactic mesh augmentation appears to be safe and might be considered for emergency laparotomy closure. Further studies evaluating long-term outcomes are still needed.Methods: Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure is controversial. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the placement of prophylactic mesh during emergency laparotomy.We performed a systematic review of Cochrane, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify RCT comparing prophylactic mesh augmentation and no mesh augmentation in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. We excluded observational studies, conference abstracts, elective surgeries, overlapping populations, and trial protocols. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023412934).We screened 1312 studies and 33 were thoroughly reviewed. Four studies comprising 464 patients were included in the analysis. Mesh reinforcement was significantly associated with a decrease in incisional hernia incidence (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.07–0.44; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and synthetic mesh placement reduced fascial dehiscence (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01–0.53; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Mesh augmentation was associated with an increase in operative time (MD 32.09 min; 95% CI 6.39–57.78; p = 0.01; I2 = 49%) and seroma (OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.54–9.84; p = 0.004; I2 = 0%), but there was no difference in surgical-site infection or surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention or reoperation.Mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy decreases incisional hernia and fascial dehiscence incidence. Despite the risk of seroma, prophylactic mesh augmentation appears to be safe and might be considered for emergency laparotomy closure. Further studies evaluating long-term outcomes are still needed.Results: Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure is controversial. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the placement of prophylactic mesh during emergency laparotomy.We performed a systematic review of Cochrane, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify RCT comparing prophylactic mesh augmentation and no mesh augmentation in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. We excluded observational studies, conference abstracts, elective surgeries, overlapping populations, and trial protocols. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023412934).We screened 1312 studies and 33 were thoroughly reviewed. Four studies comprising 464 patients were included in the analysis. Mesh reinforcement was significantly associated with a decrease in incisional hernia incidence (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.07–0.44; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and synthetic mesh placement reduced fascial dehiscence (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01–0.53; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Mesh augmentation was associated with an increase in operative time (MD 32.09 min; 95% CI 6.39–57.78; p = 0.01; I2 = 49%) and seroma (OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.54–9.84; p = 0.004; I2 = 0%), but there was no difference in surgical-site infection or surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention or reoperation.Mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy decreases incisional hernia and fascial dehiscence incidence. Despite the risk of seroma, prophylactic mesh augmentation appears to be safe and might be considered for emergency laparotomy closure. Further studies evaluating long-term outcomes are still needed.Conclusions: Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure is controversial. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the placement of prophylactic mesh during emergency laparotomy.We performed a systematic review of Cochrane, Scopus, and PubMed databases to identify RCT comparing prophylactic mesh augmentation and no mesh augmentation in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. We excluded observational studies, conference abstracts, elective surgeries, overlapping populations, and trial protocols. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023412934).We screened 1312 studies and 33 were thoroughly reviewed. Four studies comprising 464 patients were included in the analysis. Mesh reinforcement was significantly associated with a decrease in incisional hernia incidence (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.07–0.44; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and synthetic mesh placement reduced fascial dehiscence (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01–0.53; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%). Mesh augmentation was associated with an increase in operative time (MD 32.09 min; 95% CI 6.39–57.78; p = 0.01; I2 = 49%) and seroma (OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.54–9.84; p = 0.004; I2 = 0%), but there was no difference in surgical-site infection or surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention or reoperation.Mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy decreases incisional hernia and fascial dehiscence incidence. Despite the risk of seroma, prophylactic mesh augmentation appears to be safe and might be considered for emergency laparotomy closure. Further studies evaluating long-term outcomes are still needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]