Cargando…
Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation
BACKGROUND: Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterise the stage of innovation for bioabsorbable mesh devices used during both midline closure prophylaxis and complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Paris
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7867504/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32449096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02217-3 |
_version_ | 1783648306809798656 |
---|---|
author | Kamarajah, S. K. Smart, N. J. Daniels, I. R. Pinkney, T. D. Harries, R. L. |
author_facet | Kamarajah, S. K. Smart, N. J. Daniels, I. R. Pinkney, T. D. Harries, R. L. |
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 characterise the stage of innovation for bioabsorbable mesh devices used during both midline closure prophylaxis and complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence. METHODS: A systematic review of published and ongoing studies was performed until 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were studies where bioabsorbable mesh was used to support fascial closure either prophylactically after midline laparotomy or for repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. Exclusion criteria were: (1) study design was a systematic review, meta-analysis, letter, review, comment, or conference abstract; (2) included less than p patients; (3) only evaluated biological, synthetic or composite meshes. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria for study quality. RESULTS: Twelve studies including 1287 patients were included. Three studies considered mesh prophylaxis and nine studies considered hernia repair. There were only two published studies of IDEAL 2B. The remainder was IDEAL 2A studies. The quality of the evidence was categorised as having a risk of bias of a moderate, serious or critical level in nine of the twelve included studies using the ROBINS-I tool. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for bioabsorbable mesh is limited. Better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although new trial results over the next decade will improve the evidence base, more trials in emergency and contaminated settings are required to establish the limits of indication. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7867504 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Paris |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78675042021-02-16 Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation Kamarajah, S. K. Smart, N. J. Daniels, I. R. Pinkney, T. D. Harries, R. L. Hernia Review BACKGROUND: Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterise the stage of innovation for bioabsorbable mesh devices used during both midline closure prophylaxis and complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence. METHODS: A systematic review of published and ongoing studies was performed until 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were studies where bioabsorbable mesh was used to support fascial closure either prophylactically after midline laparotomy or for repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. Exclusion criteria were: (1) study design was a systematic review, meta-analysis, letter, review, comment, or conference abstract; (2) included less than p patients; (3) only evaluated biological, synthetic or composite meshes. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria for study quality. RESULTS: Twelve studies including 1287 patients were included. Three studies considered mesh prophylaxis and nine studies considered hernia repair. There were only two published studies of IDEAL 2B. The remainder was IDEAL 2A studies. The quality of the evidence was categorised as having a risk of bias of a moderate, serious or critical level in nine of the twelve included studies using the ROBINS-I tool. CONCLUSION: The evidence base for bioabsorbable mesh is limited. Better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although new trial results over the next decade will improve the evidence base, more trials in emergency and contaminated settings are required to establish the limits of indication. Springer Paris 2020-05-24 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7867504/ /pubmed/32449096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02217-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Review Kamarajah, S. K. Smart, N. J. Daniels, I. R. Pinkney, T. D. Harries, R. L. Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation |
title | Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation |
title_full | Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation |
title_fullStr | Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation |
title_full_unstemmed | Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation |
title_short | Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation |
title_sort | bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7867504/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32449096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02217-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kamarajahsk bioabsorbablemeshuseinmidlineabdominalwallprophylaxisandrepairachievingfascialclosureacrosssectionalreviewofstageofinnovation AT smartnj bioabsorbablemeshuseinmidlineabdominalwallprophylaxisandrepairachievingfascialclosureacrosssectionalreviewofstageofinnovation AT danielsir bioabsorbablemeshuseinmidlineabdominalwallprophylaxisandrepairachievingfascialclosureacrosssectionalreviewofstageofinnovation AT pinkneytd bioabsorbablemeshuseinmidlineabdominalwallprophylaxisandrepairachievingfascialclosureacrosssectionalreviewofstageofinnovation AT harriesrl bioabsorbablemeshuseinmidlineabdominalwallprophylaxisandrepairachievingfascialclosureacrosssectionalreviewofstageofinnovation |