GastrointestinalMesh reinforcement for the prevention of incisional hernia formation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundEuropean Hernia Society guidelines suggested that the evidence of mesh augmentation for the prevention of incisional hernia (IH) was weak. In addition, previous systematic reviews seldom focused on quality of life and cost-effectiveness related to mesh placement. Therefore, an updated meta-analysis was performed to clarify quality of life, cost-effectiveness, the safety, and effectiveness of mesh reinforcement in preventing the incidence of IH.MethodsEmbase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane library were searched from the inception to May 2016 without language limitation for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which explored mesh reinforcement for the prevention of IH in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries.ResultsTwelve RCTs totaling 1661 patients (958 in mesh, 703 in nonmesh) were included in our study. Compared with nonmesh, mesh reinforcement can effectively decrease the incidence of IH (relative risk: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.09-0.42). Besides, mesh placement was associated with improved quality of life, a higher rate of seroma (relative risk: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.13-2.37), and longer operating time (mean difference: 17.62; 95% CI: 1.44-33.80). No difference can be found between both groups in postoperative overall morbidity, systemic postoperative morbidity, wound-related morbidity, surgical site infection, hematoma, wound disruption, postoperative mortality, and length of hospital stay.ConclusionsProphylactic mesh reinforcement may be effective and safe to prevent the formation of IH after abdominal surgery, without impairing quality of life. Thus, preventive mesh should be routinely recommended in high-risk patients.