Cargando…

Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure

BACKGROUND: Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterize the stage of innovation for biological mesh devices used during complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence. METHOD...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kamarajah, S. K., Chapman, S. J., Glasbey, J., Morton, D., Smart, N., Pinkney, T., Bhangu, A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30511038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.78
_version_ 1783373624579719168
author Kamarajah, S. K.
Chapman, S. J.
Glasbey, J.
Morton, D.
Smart, N.
Pinkney, T.
Bhangu, A.
author_facet Kamarajah, S. K.
Chapman, S. J.
Glasbey, J.
Morton, D.
Smart, N.
Pinkney, T.
Bhangu, A.
author_sort Kamarajah, S. K.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterize the stage of innovation for biological mesh devices used during complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of published and ongoing studies between January 2000 and September 2017. Eligible studies were those where a biological mesh was used to support fascial closure, either prophylactically after midline laparotomy, or for reinforcement after repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the GRADE criteria for study quality. RESULTS: Thirty‐five studies including 2681 patients were included. Four studies considered mesh prophylaxis, 23 considered hernia repair, and eight reported on both. There was one published randomized trial (IDEAL stage 3), none of which was of high quality; the others were non‐randomized studies (IDEAL stage 2a). A detailed description of surgical technique was provided in most studies (27 of 35); however, no study reported outcomes according to the European Hernia Society consensus statement and only two described quality control of surgical technique during the study. From 21 ongoing randomized trials and observational studies, 11 considered repair of incisional hernia and 10 considered prophylaxis (seven in elective settings). CONCLUSION: The evidence base for biological mesh is limited, and better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although results of ongoing trials over the next decade will improve the evidence base, further study is required in the emergency and contaminated settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6254002
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62540022018-12-03 Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure Kamarajah, S. K. Chapman, S. J. Glasbey, J. Morton, D. Smart, N. Pinkney, T. Bhangu, A. BJS Open Review BACKGROUND: Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterize the stage of innovation for biological mesh devices used during complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of published and ongoing studies between January 2000 and September 2017. Eligible studies were those where a biological mesh was used to support fascial closure, either prophylactically after midline laparotomy, or for reinforcement after repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the GRADE criteria for study quality. RESULTS: Thirty‐five studies including 2681 patients were included. Four studies considered mesh prophylaxis, 23 considered hernia repair, and eight reported on both. There was one published randomized trial (IDEAL stage 3), none of which was of high quality; the others were non‐randomized studies (IDEAL stage 2a). A detailed description of surgical technique was provided in most studies (27 of 35); however, no study reported outcomes according to the European Hernia Society consensus statement and only two described quality control of surgical technique during the study. From 21 ongoing randomized trials and observational studies, 11 considered repair of incisional hernia and 10 considered prophylaxis (seven in elective settings). CONCLUSION: The evidence base for biological mesh is limited, and better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although results of ongoing trials over the next decade will improve the evidence base, further study is required in the emergency and contaminated settings. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2018-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6254002/ /pubmed/30511038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.78 Text en © 2018 The Authors. BJS Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Kamarajah, S. K.
Chapman, S. J.
Glasbey, J.
Morton, D.
Smart, N.
Pinkney, T.
Bhangu, A.
Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure
title Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure
title_full Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure
title_fullStr Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure
title_short Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure
title_sort systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30511038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.78
work_keys_str_mv AT kamarajahsk systematicreviewofthestageofinnovationofbiologicalmeshforcomplexorcontaminatedabdominalwallclosure
AT chapmansj systematicreviewofthestageofinnovationofbiologicalmeshforcomplexorcontaminatedabdominalwallclosure
AT glasbeyj systematicreviewofthestageofinnovationofbiologicalmeshforcomplexorcontaminatedabdominalwallclosure
AT mortond systematicreviewofthestageofinnovationofbiologicalmeshforcomplexorcontaminatedabdominalwallclosure
AT smartn systematicreviewofthestageofinnovationofbiologicalmeshforcomplexorcontaminatedabdominalwallclosure
AT pinkneyt systematicreviewofthestageofinnovationofbiologicalmeshforcomplexorcontaminatedabdominalwallclosure
AT bhangua systematicreviewofthestageofinnovationofbiologicalmeshforcomplexorcontaminatedabdominalwallclosure