4.6 Article

Prophylactic synthetic mesh can be safely used to close emergency laparotomies, even in peritonitis

期刊

SURGERY
卷 156, 期 5, 页码 1238-1244

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.04.035

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. This study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of the use of a partially absorbable large pore synthetic prophylactic mesh in emergent midline laparotomies for the prevention of evisceration and incisional hernia. Methods. Retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent an emergency midline laparotomy between January of 2009 and July of 2010 was performed. Patients with complicated ventral hernia repair, postoperative death, and lack of follow-up were excluded. Results. A total of 266 patients were included. Lap arotomies were closed with a running suture of slow-reabsorbable material in 190 patients (Group S), and 50 patients within this group (26.3%) received additional retention sutures. In 76 patients (Group M), an additional partially absorbable lightweight mesh was placed in the Supra-aponeurotic space. Both groups presented similar complication rates (71.1% Group S vs 80.3% Group M, P = .97). There were no differences regarding surgical-site infection rates (17.9% Group S vs 26.3% Group M; P = .13) or postoperative mortality (13.7% Group S vs 18.3% Group M; P = .346). A total of 150 patients completed the follow-up (99 Group S; 51 Group M) at a mean time of 16.7 months. During follow-up, 36 cases of incisional hernia (24%) were diagnosed: 33 (33%) in Group S, whereas there were only three cases (5.9%) in Group M = .0001). Mesh removal for chronic infection was not required in any case. Conclusion. The use of a partially absorbable, lightweight large pore prophylactic mesh in the closure of emergency midline laparotomies is feasible for the prevention of incisional hernia without adding a substantial rate of morbidity to the procedure, even if high contamination or infections are present.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据