Advertisement

Hernia

pp 1–6 | Cite as

Long-term results of a prospective randomized trial of midline laparotomy closure with onlay mesh

  • A. Caro-TarragoEmail author
  • C. Olona
  • M. Millán
  • M. Olona
  • B. Espina
  • R. Jorba
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Incisional hernia (IH) continues to be one of the most common complications of laparotomy. The short-term protective effect of the use of mesh has been demonstrated in several studies. At present, there is little evidence on the long-term results of the prophylactic use of mesh. The aim of the present study is to analyze the long-term prevention of IH 5 years after a midline laparotomy during elective surgery.

Methods

A prospective study was performed including all of the 160 patients that had been previously included in the prospective, randomized, controlled trial performed between May 2009 and November 2012. The protocol and results at 1 year have been previously published in 2014. The patients in group A (mesh) were fitted with a polypropylene mesh to reinforce the standard abdominal wall closure. The patients in group B (non-mesh) underwent a standard abdominal wall closure and were not fitted with the mesh. All patients were followed for 5 years or until the diagnosis of incisional hernia was made, further surgery was performed, or the patient died. Cases lost to follow-up were also registered.

Results

Five years after surgery, in group A (mesh) we have found 4/80 (5.1%) incisional hernias, while in group B (no mesh) 37/80 patients were diagnosed with an incisional hernia (46.8%). The Kaplan–Meier survival curves for these results show statistically significant differences (p > 0.001).

Conclusion

The protective effect of the use of an onlay mesh in abdominal wall closure is significantly maintained in the long-term, up to 5 years after surgery.

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial number: ISRCTN98336745.

Keywords

Incisional hernia Polypropylene mesh Prevention 

Notes

Funding

This study has not received any form of funding and the authors of this article don’t have any commercial interest.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

AC declares no conflict of interest. CO declares no conflict of interest. MM declares no conflict of interest. MO declares no conflict of interest. BE declares no conflict of interest. RJ declares no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and animal rights

This project does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

All patients signed informed consents when recruited.

References

  1. 1.
    Pereira JA, Pera M, Grande L (2013) Incidence of incisional hernia after open and laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cir Esp 91:44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Veljkovic R, Protic M, Gluhovic A, Potic Z, Milosevic Z, Stojadinovic A (2010) Prospective clinical trial of factors predicting the early development of incisional hernia after midline laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg 210:210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Ramshorst GH, Eker HH, Ho WC, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2012) Impact of incisional hernia on health-related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study. Am J Surg 204:144–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gillion JF, Sanders D, Miserez M, Muysoms F (2016) The economic burden of incisional ventral hernia repair: a multicentric cost analysis. Hernia 20:819–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gutierrez L, Medina C, Dominguez-Adame E, Medina J (2003) Primary closure of laparotomies with high risk of incisional hernia using prosthetic material: analysis of usefulness. Hernia 7:134–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Khadrawy OH, Moussa G, Mansour O, Hashish MS (2009) Prophylactic prosthetic reinforcement of midline abdominal incisions in high-risk patients. Hernia 13:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bevis PM, Windhaber RA, Lear PA, Poskitt KR, Earnshaw JJ, Mitchell DC (2010) Randomized clinical trial of mesh versus sutured wound closure after open abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Br J Surg 97:1497–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borab Z, Shakir S, Lanni M, Tecce M, McDonald J, Hope W, Fischer J (2016) Does prophylactic mesh placement in elective, midline laparotomy reduce the incidence of incisional hernia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg2016.09.036 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muysoms FE, Dietz UA (2017) Prophylactic meshes in the abdominal wall. Chirurg 88(suppl 1):34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K et al (2015) European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions 19:1–24Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Hare JL, Ward J, Earnshaw JJ (2007) Late results of mesh wound closure after elective open aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 33:412–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caro-Tarrago A, Olona C, Jimenez A, Duque E, Moreno F, Vicente V (2014) Prevention of incisional hernia in midline laparotomy with an onlay mesh: a randomized clinical trial. World J Surg 38:2223–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Israelsson LA, Jonson T (1993) Suture length to wound length ratio and healing of midline laparotomy incisions. Br J Surg 80:1284–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chevrel JP, Dilin C, Morquette H (1986) Treatment of median abdominal eventrations by muscle autograft and pre-muscular-aponeurotic prosthesis. Chirurgie 112:616–622Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM (2014) Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011–2012. JAMA 311:806–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    DuBay DA, Choi W, Urbanchek MG, Wang X, Adamson B, Dennis RG et al (2007) Incisional herniation induces decreased abdominal wall compliance via oblique muscle atrophy and fibrosis. Ann Surg 245:140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holihan JL, Alawadi Z, Martindale RG, Roth JS, Wray CJ, Ko TC et al (2015) Adverse events after ventral hernia repair: the vicious cycle of complications. J Am Coll Surg 221:478–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lopez-Cano M. Armengol M, Quiles MT, Biel A, Velasco J, Huguet P et al (2013) Preventive midline laparotomy closure with a new bioabsorbable mesh: an experimental study. J Surg Res 181:160–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bhangu A, Fitzgerald JE, Singh P, Battersby N, Marriott P, Pinkney T (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh placement for prevention of incisional hernia following midline laparotomy. Hernia 15:445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Timmermars L, De Goede B, Van Kempen BJH, Kazemier G, Jeckel J, Lange JF (2013) Prevention of incisional hernia by means of primary mesh augmentation. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Surg Res 50:72Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muysoms FE, Detry O, Vierendeels T, Huyghe M. Miserez M, Ruppert M et al (2016) Prevention of incisional hernias by prophylactic mesh augmented reinforcement of midline laparotomies of abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 263:638–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hardy MA (1989) The biology of scar formation. Phys Ther 69:1014–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gurusamy KS, Allen VB (2013) Wound drains after incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005570.pub4 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fisher JP, Basta MN, Wink JD et al (2015) Cost-utility analysis of the use of prophylactic mesh augmentation compared with primary fascial suture repair in patients at high risk for incisional hernia. Surgery 158:700–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Millbourn D, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Effect of stitch length on wound complications after closure of midline incisions: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg 144:1056–1059Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deerenberg E, Harlaar J, Steyerberg E et al (2015) Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled-trial. Lancet 386:1254–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poulouse BK, Shelton J, Phillips S et al (2012) Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research. Hernia 16:179–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fischer J, Basta M, Winck J, Krishnan N, Kovach J (2015) Cost-utility analysis of the use of prophylactic mesh augmentation compared with primary fascial suture repair in patients at high risk for incisional hernia. Surgery 158:700–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General and Digestive Surgery Service, Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospital Joan XXIIITarragonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of epidemiology and Preventive MedicineUniversity Hospital Joan XXIIITarragonaSpain

Personalised recommendations