Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of Factors Affecting Midline Incisional Hernia Rates: Analysis of 14,618 Patients
- PMID: 26389785
- PMCID: PMC4577082
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138745
Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of Factors Affecting Midline Incisional Hernia Rates: Analysis of 14,618 Patients
Abstract
Background: The incidence of incisional hernias (IHs) following midline abdominal incisions is difficult to estimate. Furthermore recent analyses have reported inconsistent findings on the superiority of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures.
Objective: To estimate the mean IH rate following midline laparotomy from the published literature, to identify variables that predict IH rates and to analyse whether the type of suture (absorbable versus non-absorbable) affects IH rates.
Methods: We undertook a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We sought randomised trials and observational studies including patients undergoing midline incisions with standard suture closure. Papers describing two or more arms suitable for inclusion had data abstracted independently for each arm.
Results: Fifty-six papers, describing 83 separate groups comprising 14,618 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of IHs after midline incision was 12.8% (range: 0 to 35.6%) at a weighted mean of 23.7 months. The estimated risk of undergoing IH repair after midline laparotomy was 5.2%. Two meta-regression analyses (A and B) each identified seven characteristics associated with increased IH rate: one patient variable (higher age), two surgical variables (surgery for AAA and either surgery for obesity surgery (model A) or using an upper midline incision (model B)), two inclusion criteria (including patients with previous laparotomies and those with previous IHs), and two circumstantial variables (later year of publication and specifying an exact significance level). There was no significant difference in IH rate between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures either alone or in conjunction with either regression analysis.
Conclusions: The IH rate estimated by pooling the published literature is 12.8% after about two years. Seven factors account for the large variation in IH rates across groups. However there is no evidence that suture type has an intrinsic effect on IH rates.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures



Similar articles
-
Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 3;11(11):CD005661. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005661.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 29099149 Free PMC article.
-
Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement Versus Primary Suture for Abdominal Wall Closure after Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Midline Laparotomy Incision: Updated Systematic Review Including Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Ann Vasc Surg. 2024 Dec;109:149-161. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2024.06.026. Epub 2024 Jul 16. Ann Vasc Surg. 2024. PMID: 39025216
-
Abdominal wound dehiscence and incisional hernia prevention in midline laparotomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2023 Jul 7;408(1):268. doi: 10.1007/s00423-023-02954-w. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2023. PMID: 37418033
-
5-year clinical outcome of the ESTOIH trial comparing the short-bite versus large-bite technique for elective midline abdominal closure.Hernia. 2025 Aug 29;29(1):263. doi: 10.1007/s10029-025-03459-9. Hernia. 2025. PMID: 40879826 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Meta-analysis on Materials and Techniques for Laparotomy Closure: The MATCH Review.World J Surg. 2018 Jun;42(6):1666-1678. doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-4393-9. World J Surg. 2018. PMID: 29322212
Cited by
-
Incisional hernia prevention: risk-benefit from a patient perspective (INVITE) - protocol for a single-centre, mixed-methods, cross-sectional study aiming to determine if using prophylactic mesh in incisional hernia prevention is acceptable to patients.BMJ Open. 2022 Dec 30;12(12):e069568. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069568. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 36585153 Free PMC article.
-
Effectiveness of Prophylactic Intraperitoneal Mesh Implantation for Prevention of Incisional Hernia in Patients Undergoing Open Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA Surg. 2019 Feb 1;154(2):109-115. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4221. JAMA Surg. 2019. PMID: 30476940 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Outcome of incisional hernia repair in patients 80 years and older: results from the Herniamed-Registry.Hernia. 2023 Oct;27(5):1273-1281. doi: 10.1007/s10029-023-02866-0. Epub 2023 Aug 26. Hernia. 2023. PMID: 37633864 Free PMC article.
-
Lack of Standardized Advice on Physical Strain Following Abdominal Surgery.Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020 Oct 30;117(44):737-744. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0737. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020. PMID: 33439823 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Computed Tomography Verified Prevalence of Incisional Hernia 1 Year Postoperatively after Colorectal Cancer Resection.Scand J Surg. 2021 Sep;110(3):373-379. doi: 10.1177/1457496920976053. Epub 2020 Dec 16. Scand J Surg. 2021. PMID: 33326354 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Korenkov M, Paul A, Sauerland S, Neugebauer E, Arndt M, Chevrel JP, et al. Classification and surgical treatment of incisional hernia. Results of an experts' meeting. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2001;386: 65–73. - PubMed
-
- Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Buttarelli M, Tateo S, Balestreri D, Bolis P. Incisional hernia in gynecologic oncology patients: A 10-year study. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97: 696–700. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous