Cargando…
Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis
PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of a mesh reinforcement following stoma reversal to prevent stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) and differences across the prostheses used. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify compara...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Paris
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8197707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33713204 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-021-02393-w |
_version_ | 1783706975232589824 |
---|---|
author | Peltrini, Roberto Imperatore, Nicola Altieri, Gaia Castiglioni, Simone Di Nuzzo, Maria Michela Grimaldi, Luciano D’Ambra, Michele Lionetti, Ruggero Bracale, Umberto Corcione, Francesco |
author_facet | Peltrini, Roberto Imperatore, Nicola Altieri, Gaia Castiglioni, Simone Di Nuzzo, Maria Michela Grimaldi, Luciano D’Ambra, Michele Lionetti, Ruggero Bracale, Umberto Corcione, Francesco |
author_sort | Peltrini, Roberto |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of a mesh reinforcement following stoma reversal to prevent stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) and differences across the prostheses used. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until September 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and a network meta-analysis for a multiple comparison of the prostheses with each other were performed. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the analysis (78.4% ileostomy and 21.6% colostomy) with a total of 1716 patients with (n = 684) or without (n = 1032) mesh. Mesh placement was associated with lower risk of SSIH (7.8%vs18.1%, OR0.266,95% CI 0.123–0.577, p < 0.001) than no mesh procedures but also with a longer operative time (SMD 0.941, 95% CI 0.462–1.421, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of Surgical Site infection (11.5% vs 11.1%, OR 1.074, 95% CI 0.78–1.48, p = 0.66), seroma formation (4.4% vs 7.1%, OR 1.052, 95% CI 0.64–1.73, p = 0.84), anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs 2.7%, OR 1.598, 95% CI 0.846–3.019, p = 0.149) and length of stay (SMD − 0.579,95% CI − 1.261 to 0.102, p = 0.096) between mesh and no mesh groups. Use of prosthesis was associated with a significant lower need for a reoperation than no mesh group (8.1% vs 12.1%, OR 0.332, 95% CI 0.119–0.930, p = 0.036). Incidence of seroma is lower with biologic than polypropylene meshes but they showed a trend towards poor results compared with polypropylene or biosynthetic meshes. CONCLUSION: Despite longer operative time, mesh prophylactic reinforcement at the site of stoma seems a safe and effective procedure with lower incidence of SSIH, need for reoperation and comparable short-term outcomes than standard closure technique. A significant superiority of a specific mesh type was not identified. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10029-021-02393-w. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8197707 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Paris |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81977072021-06-28 Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis Peltrini, Roberto Imperatore, Nicola Altieri, Gaia Castiglioni, Simone Di Nuzzo, Maria Michela Grimaldi, Luciano D’Ambra, Michele Lionetti, Ruggero Bracale, Umberto Corcione, Francesco Hernia Review PURPOSE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of a mesh reinforcement following stoma reversal to prevent stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) and differences across the prostheses used. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until September 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and a network meta-analysis for a multiple comparison of the prostheses with each other were performed. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the analysis (78.4% ileostomy and 21.6% colostomy) with a total of 1716 patients with (n = 684) or without (n = 1032) mesh. Mesh placement was associated with lower risk of SSIH (7.8%vs18.1%, OR0.266,95% CI 0.123–0.577, p < 0.001) than no mesh procedures but also with a longer operative time (SMD 0.941, 95% CI 0.462–1.421, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of Surgical Site infection (11.5% vs 11.1%, OR 1.074, 95% CI 0.78–1.48, p = 0.66), seroma formation (4.4% vs 7.1%, OR 1.052, 95% CI 0.64–1.73, p = 0.84), anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs 2.7%, OR 1.598, 95% CI 0.846–3.019, p = 0.149) and length of stay (SMD − 0.579,95% CI − 1.261 to 0.102, p = 0.096) between mesh and no mesh groups. Use of prosthesis was associated with a significant lower need for a reoperation than no mesh group (8.1% vs 12.1%, OR 0.332, 95% CI 0.119–0.930, p = 0.036). Incidence of seroma is lower with biologic than polypropylene meshes but they showed a trend towards poor results compared with polypropylene or biosynthetic meshes. CONCLUSION: Despite longer operative time, mesh prophylactic reinforcement at the site of stoma seems a safe and effective procedure with lower incidence of SSIH, need for reoperation and comparable short-term outcomes than standard closure technique. A significant superiority of a specific mesh type was not identified. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10029-021-02393-w. Springer Paris 2021-03-13 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8197707/ /pubmed/33713204 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-021-02393-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Peltrini, Roberto Imperatore, Nicola Altieri, Gaia Castiglioni, Simone Di Nuzzo, Maria Michela Grimaldi, Luciano D’Ambra, Michele Lionetti, Ruggero Bracale, Umberto Corcione, Francesco Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8197707/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33713204 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-021-02393-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT peltriniroberto preventionofincisionalherniaatthesiteofstomaclosurewithdifferentreinforcingmeshtypesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT imperatorenicola preventionofincisionalherniaatthesiteofstomaclosurewithdifferentreinforcingmeshtypesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT altierigaia preventionofincisionalherniaatthesiteofstomaclosurewithdifferentreinforcingmeshtypesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT castiglionisimone preventionofincisionalherniaatthesiteofstomaclosurewithdifferentreinforcingmeshtypesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT dinuzzomariamichela preventionofincisionalherniaatthesiteofstomaclosurewithdifferentreinforcingmeshtypesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT grimaldiluciano preventionofincisionalherniaatthesiteofstomaclosurewithdifferentreinforcingmeshtypesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT dambramichele preventionofincisionalherniaatthesiteofstomaclosurewithdifferentreinforcingmeshtypesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lionettiruggero preventionofincisionalherniaatthesiteofstomaclosurewithdifferentreinforcingmeshtypesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT bracaleumberto preventionofincisionalherniaatthesiteofstomaclosurewithdifferentreinforcingmeshtypesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT corcionefrancesco preventionofincisionalherniaatthesiteofstomaclosurewithdifferentreinforcingmeshtypesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |