RESUMEN
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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Asunto(s)
Hernia Incisional , Laparotomía , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Mallas Quirúrgicas , Humanos , Laparotomía/efectos adversos , Hernia Incisional/prevención & control , Urgencias Médicas , Dehiscencia de la Herida Operatoria/prevención & control , Dehiscencia de la Herida Operatoria/etiología , Técnicas de Cierre de Herida AbdominalRESUMEN
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.