Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jun 14;2(6):371-380.
doi: 10.1002/bjs5.78. eCollection 2018 Dec.

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

Affiliations
Review

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

S K Kamarajah et al. BJS Open. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA diagram for the study

References

    1. Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW, Lont HE, van Doorn HC, Heisterkamp J et al Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double‐blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 386: 1254–1260. - PubMed
    1. Bosanquet DC, Ansell J, Abdelrahman T, Cornish J, Harries R, Stimpson A et al Systematic review and meta‐regression of factors affecting midline incisional hernia rates: analysis of 14 618 patients. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0138745. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fischer JP, Basta MN, Mirzabeigi MN, Bauder AR, Fox JP, Drebin JA et al A risk model and cost analysis of incisional hernia after elective, abdominal surgery based upon 12 373 cases: the case for targeted prophylactic intervention. Ann Surg 2016; 263: 1010–1017. - PMC - PubMed
    1. van Ramshorst GH, Eker HH, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Lange JF. Impact of incisional hernia on health‐related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study. Am J Surg 2012; 204: 144–150. - PubMed
    1. Chand B, Indeck M, Needleman B, Finnegan M, Van Sickle KR, Ystgaard B et al A retrospective study evaluating the use of Permacol™ surgical implant in incisional and ventral hernia repair. Int J Surg 2014; 12: 296–303. - PubMed