Dataset Information

Fascial Defect Closure During Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

During minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) it is unknown if a fascial defect closure, as opposed to a bridged repair (current care), is beneficial for patients. We sought to systematically review the published literature on the role of fascial defect closure during minimally invasive VHR.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov were reviewed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fascial defect closure with bridged repair. The primary outcome was major complications defined as deep/organ-space surgical site infections (SSIs), reoperations, hernia recurrences, or deaths. Secondary outcomes included SSI, seroma, eventration, hernia recurrence, post-operative pain, and quality of life (QOL). Pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were obtained through random effect meta-analyses.

Results

Of 579 screened articles, 6 publications of 5 RCTs were included. No significant difference in major complications (10.6% vs 10.4%, RR=1.05, 95% CI=0.51-2.14, P=.90) or recurrences (9.0% vs 10.6%, RR=0.92, 95% CI=0.32-2.61, P=.87) were found between groups. Fascial defect closure decreased the risk of seromas (22.9% vs 34.2%, RR=0.60, 95% CI=0.37-0.97, P=.04) and may decrease the risk of eventrations (6.7% vs 9.0%, RR=0.74, 95% CI=0.37-1.50, P=.41) at the expense of potentially increasing the risk of SSI (3.2% vs 1.4%, RR=1.89, 95% CI=0.60-5.93; P=.28). Reporting of pain and QOL scores was inconsistent.

Conclusion

While most individual RCTs demonstrated benefit with fascial defect closure during minimally invasive VHR, our meta-analysis of fascial defect closure demonstrated only a statistically significant difference in seromas compared to bridged repair. Large, multi-center RCTs are needed.

SUBMITTER: Jeong S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10519634 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Fascial Defect Closure During Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Jeong Shin S Anwoju Tunmi A TA Olavarria Oscar A OA Cavagnaro Natalia N Dhanani Naila H NH Lyons Nicole B NB Ali Zuhair Z Liang Mike K MK

HCA healthcare journal of medicine 20230829 4

<h4>Background</h4>During minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) it is unknown if a fascial defect closure, as opposed to a bridged repair (current care), is beneficial for patients. We sought to systematically review the published literature on the role of fascial defect closure during minimally invasive VHR.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov were reviewed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fascial defect closure with bridged repa ...[more]

PMID: 37753408

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether robotic ventral hernia repair is associated with fewer days in the hospital 90 days after surgery compared with laparoscopic repair.DesignPragmatic, blinded randomized controlled trial.SettingMultidisciplinary hernia clinics in Houston, USA.Participants124 patients, deemed appropriate candidates for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair, consecutively presenting from April 2018 to February 2019.InterventionsRobotic ventral hernia repair (n=65) versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (n=59).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was number of days in hospital within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, operating room time, wound complications, hernia recurrence, reoperation, abdominal wall quality of life, and costs from the healthcare system perspective. Outcomes were pre-specified before data collection began and analyzed as intention to treat.ResultsPatients from both groups were similar at baseline. Ninety day follow-up was completed in 123 (99%) patients. No evidence was seen of a difference in days in hospital between the two groups (median 0 v 0 days; relative rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 2.19; P=0.82). For secondary outcomes, no differences were noted in emergency department visits, wound complications, hernia recurrence, or reoperation. However, robotic repair had longer operative duration (141 v 77 min; mean difference 62.89, 45.75 to 80.01; P≤0.001) and increased healthcare costs ($15 865 (£12 746; €14 125) v $12 955; cost ratio 1.21, 1.07 to 1.38; adjusted absolute cost difference $2767, $910 to $4626; P=0.004). Among patients with robotic ventral hernia repair, two had an enterotomy compared none with laparoscopic repair. The median one month postoperative improvement in abdominal wall quality of life was 3 with robotic ventral hernia repair compared with 15 following laparoscopic repair.ConclusionThis study found no evidence of a difference in 90 day postoperative hospital days between robotic and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. However, robotic repair increased operative duration and healthcare costs.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03490266.

Project description:Background:The objective of the present study is to compare the outcomes open PVHR and robotic PVHR. Methods/Design:The present study will be a randomized single-blinded controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis comparing robotic PVHR to open PVHR in adult patients undergoing elective PVHR with a defect ranging between 1-5 cm. Patient refusing to participate, not able to give informed consent, with history of intra-abdominal surgery contraindicating a robotic surgical approach will be excluded. The intervention will consist in laparoscopic robotically assisted trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical PVHR with closure of fascial defect and non-adsorbable mesh reinforcement. The control will be open pre-peritoneal epigastric or umbilical hernia repair with closure of fascial defect and non-absorbable mesh reinforcement. The primary outcome will be the incidence of wound-related complication within 1 month. The secondary outcomes will be esthetic satisfaction, pain, pain-killers consumption, general complications, costs, operative time and early hernia recurrence. Discussion:Open PVHR is potentially associated to more wound-related complications, but has the advantages of cost-effectiveness, short operative time and totally extra-peritoneal repair. Laparoscopic PVHR has lower wound-related complications but implies placing the mesh in intra-peritoneal position, requires advanced laparoscopic skills, usually does not allow the closure of the defect, and can lead to excessive pain and pain-killers consumption. Robotic PVHR uses the same laparoscopic access as laparoscopic PVHR, but thanks to the extended range of motion given by the robotic system, allows defect closure, pre-peritoneal placement of the mesh and requires less technical skills.In the present randomized controlled trial, we expect to show that robotic PVHR leads to better wound-related outcomes than open PVHR. Trial registration:The present randomized controlled trial was registered into clinicaltrials.gov under registration number NCT04171921.

Project description:IntroductionFascial defects are a common problem in the abdominal wall and in the vagina leading to hernia or pelvic organ prolapse that requires mesh enhancement to reduce operation failure. However, the long-term outcome of synthetic mesh surgery may be unsatisfactory due to post-surgical complications. We hypothesized that mesh fabricated from alternative synthetic polymers may evoke a different tissue response, and provide more appropriate mechanical properties for hernia repair. Our aim was to compare the in vivo biocompatibility of new synthetic meshes with a commercial mesh.MethodsWe have fabricated 3 new warp-knitted synthetic meshes from different polymers with different tensile properties polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyamide (PA) and a composite, gelatin coated PA (PA+G). The rat abdominal hernia model was used to implant the meshes (25 × 35 mm, n = 24/ group). After 7, 30, 60, 90 days tissues were explanted for immunohistochemical assessment of foreign body reaction and tissue integration, using CD31, CD45, CD68, alpha-SMA antibodies. The images were analysed using an image analysis software program. Biomechanical properties were uniaxially evaluated using an Instron Tensile® Tester.ResultsThis study showed that the new meshes induced complex differences in the type of foreign body reaction over the time course of implantation. The PA, and particularly the composite PA+G meshes, evoked a milder early inflammatory response, and macrophages were apparent throughout the time course. Our meshes led to better tissue integration and new collagen deposition, particularly with the PA+G meshes, as well as greater and sustained neovascularisation compared with the PP meshes.ConclusionPA, PA+G and PEEK appear to be well tolerated and are biocompatible, evoking an overlapping and different host tissue response with time that might convey mechanical variations in the healing tissue. These new meshes comprising different polymers may provide an alternative option for future treatment of fascial defects.

Project description:Background: Many surgeons utilize biologic mesh for elective complex ventral hernia repair (VHR; large hernias, contaminated fields, or patients with comorbid conditions). However, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared biologic and synthetic mesh. We hypothesize biologic mesh would result in fewer major complications at one-year post-operative compared with synthetic mesh. Patients and Methods: We performed a single-center, pilot RCT. All eligible patients undergoing complex, open VHR were randomly assigned to receive biologic or synthetic mesh placed in the retromuscular position. Primary outcome was major complications, namely, a composite of mesh infection, recurrence, or re-operation at one-year post-operative. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infections (SSI), seromas, hematomas, wound dehiscence, re-admissions, and Clavien-Dindo complication grade. Outcomes were assessed using Fisher exact test and Bayesian generalized linear models. Results: Of 87 patients, 44 were randomly assigned to biologic mesh and 43 to synthetic mesh. Most cases were wound class 2-4 (68%) and 75% had a hernia width >4 cm. Most patients were obese (70%) and had an American Society of Anesthesiogists (ASA) score of 3-4 (53%). Compared with patients in the synthetic mesh group, patients in the biologic mesh group had a higher percentage of: major complications at one-year post-operative (42.4% vs. 21.6%; relative risk [RR] = 1.96 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.94-4.08]; number needed to harm = 4.8; p = 0.071); SSI (15.9% vs. 9.3%; RR = 1.71 [95% CI = 0.54-5.42]; p = 0.362); wound dehiscence (25.0% vs. 14.0%; RR = 1.79 [95% CI = 0.73-4.41]; p = 0.205); and re-admissions (22.7% vs 9.3%; RR = 2.44 [95% CI = 0.83-7.20]; p = 0.105). Bayesian analysis demonstrated that compared with synthetic mesh, biologic mesh had a 95% probability of increased risk of major complications at one-year post-operative. No clear evidence of a difference was found on seromas, hematomas, or Clavien-Dindo complication grade. Conclusions: In elective complex open VHR, biologic mesh demonstrated no benefit compared with synthetic mesh in one-year outcomes. Moreover, Bayesian analysis suggests that biologic mesh may have an increased probability of major complications.

Project description:BackgroundFascial Therapy is an ancient and widespread practice throughout the world. These approaches are very common in osteopathic practice and taught in workshops for professionals from different areas of health care, including Physiotherapy. This type of treatment is quite specialized and centered on the therapist. However, there is a lack of high-quality and low-risk bias studies that justify the use of this practice. Despite this, there is little scientific evidence about the effectiveness of Fascial Therapy to treat some visceral disorders. The purpose of this study was to critically appraise the scientific literature concerning the clinical efficacy of techniques used in Fascial Therapy targeting the visceral system.MethodsThis systematic review included randomized controlled trials in any language or date of publication. All primary outcomes reported were included. The methodological quality and statistical reporting of each eligible trial were evaluated using the version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). This systematic review provided a synthesis of current evidence on the effects of Fascial Therapy in patients with visceral disorders and/or pain. A total of 11 studies were included, with five of them covering gastrointestinal dysfunction, two covering cardiorespiratory dysfunction, two covering musculoskeletal dysfunction, and two covering urogenital dysfunction.ResultsFascial Therapy targeting the visceral system has been shown to be effective in reducing pain over the long term in people with low back pain when combined with standard physical therapy and effective in reducing gastroesophageal reflux symptoms over the short term. Considering the overall bias, six studies were at high risk of bias, two studies had some concerns and only three studies were at low risk of bias. Of the three studies with a low risk of bias, only two showed positive results and were effective in improving the studied outcome.ConclusionThis systematic review shows that currently, there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the techniques used in Fascial Therapy targeting the visceral system, and this information can help healthcare professionals in decision-making related to the use of Fascial Therapy targeting the visceral system in patients with visceral disorders and/or pain.

Dataset Information

Fascial Defect Closure During Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Fascial Defect Closure During Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets