Treatment of rectus diastasis: should the midline always be reinforced with mesh? A systematic review

Abstract

Background: Two main trends are described for the treatment of diastasis recti: plication versus midline mesh reinforcement. Indications for these procedures have not been clearly described. This study reviewed the outcomes in the treatment of rectus diastasis with plication versus mesh by the assessment of durability, complications, and patient-reported outcomes.

Materials and methods: A systematic review of literature on the treatment of diastasis recti was performed searching through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. This resulted in 53 eligible articles and predefined inclusion criteria led to the selection of 24 articles. Primary outcomes included recurrence and perioperative complications and secondary outcomes were defined as patient satisfaction, chronic pain, and quality of life.

Results: A total of 931 patients were surgically treated for rectus divarication (age range: 18 - 70 years). The most frequently noted comorbidity was obesity and 10.6 percent were smokers. Recurrence was reported in 5 percent of the patients. The most frequent complication was seroma (7 percent), followed by abdominal hypoesthesia (6 percent), and surgical site infection (2 percent). Chronic pain was reported in 4 percent of the patients. Satisfaction was assessed subjectively in the majority of patients and was generally rated as high. Follow-up period ranged from 3 weeks to 20 years.

Conclusions: Durability, safety, and high patient satisfaction support surgical correction of rectus diastasis and could not favor a treatment method. Inter-rectus distance could not be identified as the indicator for technique, which emphasizes that other factors might add to the entity of abdominal wall protrusion more than previously thought.

Keywords: abdominal wall reconstruction; abdominoplasty; body contouring; midline plication; midline reconstruction; rectus diastasis.