ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد آیتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : -3 مورد

Prophylactic mesh for ventral incisional hernia prevention

Prophylactic mesh for ventral incisional hernia prevention
Authors:
Julie L Holihan, MD, MS
Mike K Liang, MD, FACS
Section Editor:
Michael Rosen, MD
Deputy Editor:
Wenliang Chen, MD, PhD
Literature review current through: Apr 2025. | This topic last updated: May 08, 2025.

INTRODUCTION — 

Ventral incisional hernia (VIH) formation following abdominopelvic surgery is common. VIHs negatively affect an individual's quality of life by causing pain, diminishing function, and creating poor cosmesis. Unfortunately, VIH repair can be associated with poor short-term and long-term outcomes. (See "Clinical features, diagnosis, and prevention of incisional hernias".)

As such, there is increasing interest in the role of prophylactic mesh at the time of abdominal closure to prevent VIH from ever occurring. However, placing mesh to repair a hernia and placing mesh prophylactically to prevent a hernia are inherently different, with the former generally accepted and the latter much more controversial.

This topic will discuss the benefits/risks, patient selection, and techniques of prophylactic mesh placement during abdominopelvic surgery. The use of mesh for VIH repair is discussed elsewhere. (See "Management of ventral hernias".)

BENEFITS AND RISKS — 

Although prophylactic mesh placement may reduce the short-term risk of VIH formation, longer-term data suggest that complications may outweigh the short-term benefits.

Short-term benefits — The main advantage of prophylactic mesh placement is a decrease in VIH formation, which is strongly supported by the literature. However, only a fraction of the published trials had greater than 80 percent follow-up for at least 24 months (table 1), and none reported follow-up greater than five years [1]. Studies with less than 80 percent follow-up are at substantial risk for bias, and results need to be interpreted with caution [2].

Midline incisions — Since 2020, there have been 12 systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the use of prophylactic mesh following laparotomy [1,3-13]. All of these showed a reduction in VIH risk using prophylactic mesh compared with no mesh (relative risk [RR] range 0.24-0.38). There was no difference in surgical site infection with prophylactic mesh versus no mesh (RR range 0.82-1.08). In one study, there was an increase in the risk of surgical site occurrence (eg, seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence) using prophylactic mesh (14.2 versus 8.9 percent, RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.19-2.05) [1]. The other studies showed increased risk of seroma using onlay mesh compared with suture only (RR range 2.21-2.23), but no difference in seroma using sublay mesh versus suture only [3,4].

These results must be interpreted with caution, as publication bias (eg, trials showing a difference are more likely to be published) may lead to an overestimation of the true effect. When adjusted for publication bias, the effect size is reduced by half (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.70) [1].

Emergency laparotomy — Emergency laparotomies are associated with worse outcomes than elective cases. They have higher rates of acute wound dehiscence (up to 14.9 percent), VIH formation (up to 50 percent), and other wound complications [14]. Therefore, there is significant interest in using prophylactic mesh for emergency laparotomies.

Multiple trials have been performed looking specifically at the use of prophylactic mesh in emergency settings [15-18]. A systematic review and meta-analysis of four randomized trials (464 patients) reported that mesh reduced the risk of VIH (odds ratio [OR] 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.44) [19]. Furthermore, the mesh group was associated with increased operative time (mean difference 32.09 min, 95% CI 6.39-57.78) and increased seroma (OR 3.89, 95% CI 1.54-9.84). There was no difference in surgical site infection or surgical site occurrence requiring intervention.

Parastomal hernias — There are numerous randomized trials and systematic reviews/meta-analyses assessing the role of mesh in preventing parastomal hernias [20-25]. In a 2024 meta-analysis of 16 trials, six follow-up studies, and three retrospective cohort studies, the OR of parastomal hernia formation was reduced using mesh compared with no mesh for any follow-up after six months (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33-0.58) [20]. A network meta-analysis comparing mesh positions, including retrorectus, keyhole, and Sugarbaker, showed that retrorectus mesh had the lowest rate of parastomal hernia formation.

Off-midline incisions — There have been multiple randomized trials and systematic reviews/meta-analyses on the use of prophylactic mesh for off-midline incisions (eg, stoma reversal) [26-28].

A meta-analysis of seven studies found that mesh placement at the time of stoma reversal was associated with a lower risk of stoma site incisional hernia (7.8 versus 18.1 percent) and a lower need for a reoperation (8.1 versus 12.1 percent) compared with no mesh procedures [27]. Mesh placement required longer operative time but was not associated with worse surgical outcomes (eg, surgical site infection).

Similarly, a meta-analysis of six studies comparing mesh versus no mesh in stoma site reversal showed a decrease in stoma site hernia using mesh (OR 0.22, p = 0.003). Mesh required a longer operative time. There was no difference in surgical site infection, bowel obstruction, anastomotic leak, seroma/hematoma, or length of stay between groups [28].

A randomized trial of 790 patients undergoing ileostomy or colostomy closure compared repair with biologic mesh reinforcement versus suture alone. Hernia rate at 2 years was reduced in the mesh group (risk ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.90) [26]. There were no differences in postoperative complications including infection, seroma, pain, or serious adverse events. A follow-up study of 598 patients from the original trial at five to eight years did not find a difference in either quality of life scores or cost [29]. However, patients who received mesh experienced significantly fewer stoma site complications within the first three years after reversal and needed fewer surgical reinterventions (32 versus 54; incidence rate ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.97).

Potential long-term complications — Although the results of prophylactic mesh in the short term are promising, it is unclear whether these benefits will sustain long term or diminish as complications accumulate [30]. Because of that, we currently do not recommend routine prophylactic mesh placement. Instead, each surgeon-patient dyad should use shared decision-making to assess the risks/benefits of prophylactic mesh [31]. It is important to assess the long-term outcomes associated with prophylactic mesh prior to widespread dissemination of the practice.

Once a prosthetic mesh is implanted, patients must live with the procedure and prosthetic long term. Mesh complications have been shown to occur years after mesh placement, including reoperation in the presence of a mesh, adhesions, bowel obstructions, or fistulas. Such mesh complications are cumulative over time, and some data suggest that the benefits of mesh placement are offset by mesh complications over time [30]. (See "Hernia mesh", section on 'Mesh-associated morbidities'.)

A case-matched retrospective study of patients who were undergoing abdominal surgery matched patients who had had prior abdominal surgery with and without mesh [32]. The study showed that patients with abdominal mesh undergoing additional abdominal surgery had increased overall complications (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.27-1.60), increased length of stay, and increased hospital readmissions compared with those without mesh. This suggests that abdominal mesh has long-term consequence and complicates future abdominal surgeries.

Furthermore, complications are not all equal, and complications due to mesh can be quite severe, such as enterocutaneous fistulas and chronic mesh infections requiring eventual mesh explantation. Trials that show equal complication rates using prophylactic mesh or suture fail to account for the severity of certain complications.

PATIENT SELECTION — 

Prophylactic mesh may be considered in patients with a substantial abdominopelvic incision (open surgery, hand-assisted laparoscopy, or use of an extended extraction site such as for specimen removal for a hemicolectomy) and one of the following risk factors that have been associated with increased risk of VIH [33-36]:

Being overweight/obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥25 kg/m2)

Diabetes

Smoking

Malnutrition

History of previous laparotomy

Open incision type

Midline incision

Presence of ostomy

Immunosuppression (eg, steroid use)

Prophylactic mesh is generally not used in the following patients in whom the potential risk of mesh outweighs the benefit:

Patients with a life expectancy less than two years (eg, patients with advanced cirrhosis, metastatic cancer) [37].

Patients with significant contamination (wound class 4) who are at high risk of mesh infection. (See "Antimicrobial prophylaxis for prevention of surgical site infection in adults", section on 'Wound classification'.)

Patients at low risk for VIH, such as those undergoing laparoscopic surgery with a limited extraction site and patients with no comorbidities [38,39].

Patients who have a planned second surgery (eg, a patient with a colostomy who will ultimately need an ostomy reversal).

Patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease who may be prone to fistula formation (ie, Crohn's patients).

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE — 

Currently, prophylactic mesh is not routinely used due to a lack of long-term data, but it may be considered in patients with one of the known risk factors for VIH formation discussed above. (See 'Patient selection' above.)

Midline incisions — There are many options for how to place prophylactic mesh at midline incisions. In randomized trials on prophylactic mesh, various mesh types, overlaps, fixations, and locations have been used (table 2) with no clear difference in outcomes. However, based on available data, the following are the authors' recommendations.

Mesh type — With regards to the type of mesh, surgeons have three options: synthetic, biologic, or bioabsorbable mesh. There are potential risks and benefits to each mesh. Available data are limited and conflicting, and practice patterns vary depending on surgeon preference. In our practice, we use mid-density synthetic mesh for prophylactic mesh placement.

Synthetic mesh has been shown to have low rates of hernia recurrence, but it may be associated with increased risk of surgical site infection and mesh infection [40]. In addition, synthetic mesh is permanent and has the potential to lead to long-term mesh complications. (See 'Potential long-term complications' above.)

Biologic mesh has traditionally been used in contaminated or emergency cases with the premise that it was associated with fewer wound complications than synthetic mesh [41]. In a randomized trial, there was no difference in abdominal wall complications after emergency abdominal surgery with biologic mesh compared with no mesh; however, abdominal wall complications requiring reoperation were more frequent with biologic mesh [16]. In ventral hernia repair, biologic mesh is associated with more major complications, including mesh infection, hernia recurrence, and reoperation, compared with synthetic mesh [42-44].

Bioabsorbable mesh is a slowly resorbable synthetic mesh. Some surgeons believe they are associated with a lower risk of surgical site infections and hernia recurrence and improved patient abdominal wall function compared with biologic or synthetic mesh [45]. Data on prophylactic bioabsorbable mesh suggests that the mesh is effective at preventing hernias for the first postoperative year with no increase in surgical complications; however, long-term results of the randomized trial are not yet available [18,46,47].

Mesh overlap — The ideal amount of mesh overlap in prophylactic mesh placement is unknown. In our practice, we aim for at least 3 cm of overlap for prophylactic mesh. In VIH repair, a minimum of 5 cm of mesh overlap is widely accepted. However, less may be adequate for prophylactic mesh. While there is no prospective or randomized study on this, a study using an incisional hernia model demonstrated that 3 cm of mesh overlap was enough to prevent mesh dislocation [48].

Mesh fixation — Mesh fixation is also largely unstudied in prophylactic mesh. In our practice, we fixate mesh using a single-crown technique in laparoscopic cases. In open or robotic cases, mesh placed in the preperitoneal or retromuscular space is either secured using suture or not fixed.

Techniques for fixation vary by mesh location but include suture, transfascial sutures, single-crown tacks, double-crown tacks, and glue. With intraperitoneal mesh placement during laparoscopic ventral hernia repair, glue fixation has been associated with a higher hernia recurrence rate than tacks [49]. However, glue fixation has been acceptable for retromuscular and onlay repair of ventral hernias as well as during inguinal hernia repair (laparoscopic and open).

A randomized controlled trial of 325 patients showed no difference in hernia recurrence rate at one year following open retromuscular ventral hernia repair with and without transfascial sutures (9.2 versus 7.4 percent) [50]. Furthermore, there is some evidence that transfascial suture fixation is associated with greater postoperative pain than other methods of fixation; however, other studies show no difference in postoperative pain between tacks or suture [51-53].

Mesh location — There are a variety of possible planes for mesh placement (figure 1), and each has advantages and disadvantages [54]. The American and European Hernia Societies recommend either onlay or retromuscular mesh position for meshes placed prophylactically [7].

Onlay – Skin flaps are elevated off the anterior rectus sheath to allow for 3 cm of mesh overlap on either side of the incision. When possible, perforating vessels, which lie in the 4 cm around the umbilicus, should be preserved. Skin flaps should be minimized in size as they increase the incidence of wound complications, such as seroma and surgical site infection. The anterior fascia is closed using 0.5 x 0.5 cm bites with 0-PDS suture. An uncoated synthetic mesh is placed on the fascia and secured with interrupted suture. Skin flaps can be tacked down using quilting sutures to prevent seroma formation. A closed suction drain is placed over the mesh. Skin is closed over the mesh.

Intraperitoneal – All adhesions are cleared from the abdominal wall. A mesh size is chosen that will allow for 3 cm of overlap on all sides of the incision. In clean cases, a coated synthetic mesh is used. In laparoscopic cases, the fascia is closed using interrupted 0-PDS on a suture passer. The mesh is then secured using transfascial sutures preplaced on each side of the mesh using a suture passer. A single crown of tacks is placed circumferentially. In open cases, stay sutures are placed in the mesh superiorly, inferiorly, and laterally so that it will lie flat with no wrinkles or folding once the anterior rectus fascia is closed. Interrupted 0-PDS sutures are then placed in between the stay sutures to ensure there is no gapping between the mesh and the abdominal wall. Once the mesh is secured, the fascia is closed using running 0-PDS suture with 0.5 x 0.5 cm bites.

Retromuscular/preperitoneal – All adhesions are cleared from the abdominal wall. The preperitoneal or retromuscular plane is developed. An uncoated synthetic mesh is chosen that will allow for 3 cm of mesh overlap on all sides. The peritoneum and/or posterior rectus sheath is closed with running 0-PDS suture. The mesh is placed in the developed plane. Fixation is optional but can be performed with glue or sutures. The anterior rectus sheath is closed with 0.5 x 0.5 cm bites using 0-PDS.

In ventral hernia repair, retromuscular/preperitoneal placement is associated with the lowest rate of wound complications and the lowest rate of hernia recurrence [55]. Performing this repair requires additional training for most surgeons, has technical challenges, requires additional operative duration, and requires violation of a potential space. Intraperitoneal mesh has the second-best results in terms of hernia recurrence. However, this places mesh in contact with intra-abdominal contents, which can lead to intra-abdominal adhesions and has potential for fistula formation. Onlay mesh has higher rates of wound complications and hernia recurrence than retromuscular/preperitoneal or intraperitoneal mesh. However, it is technically easier to place and may be useful in certain situations. Inlay (bridged) repair is associated with a high risk of hernia recurrence and should be avoided when fascial closure is possible.

Randomized trials of prophylactic mesh in patients undergoing laparotomy have included onlay, retromuscular/preperitoneal, and intraperitoneal meshes. On network meta-analysis of these trials, retromuscular/preperitoneal mesh was associated with the lowest rate of VIH [56]. Onlay mesh placement was associated with a higher rate of wound complications compared with retromuscular/preperitoneal; however, there was no difference in other short-term complications, including surgical site infection, reintervention, or readmission [57]. Patients with onlay mesh reinforcement and an infectious complication had a significantly higher risk of developing an incisional hernia compared with those in the retromuscular/preperitoneal group [58].

Parastomal incisions — The optimal technique for prophylactic mesh placement at the time of ostomy creation is unknown (figure 2). Techniques used in randomized trials are variable (table 3). The authors prefer to use a keyhole technique via a midline approach using a polypropylene mesh with 3 cm of mesh overlap in the retromuscular space, which is technically more challenging than other approaches but provides acceptable outcomes.

In general, a preoperative bowel preparation should be given the night before surgery. The stoma site should be marked preoperatively by the stoma nurse to avoid any skin folds. (See "Overview of surgical ostomy for fecal diversion", section on 'Ostomy construction'.)

Keyhole technique via a midline approach — Through a midline incision, all intra-abdominal adhesions are taken down. The plane between the rectus muscle and the posterior rectus sheath or peritoneum (below the arcuate line) is developed. The plane should be developed 3 cm circumferentially around the stoma. The posterior rectus sheath/peritoneum is closed in the midline and around the stoma using running 0-PDS suture, leaving just enough space for the ostomy to pass through. A polypropylene mesh is incised from one side toward the center, where a cruciate incision or circular defect is cut at 50 percent of the bowel width to allow for ostomy passage [59]. The mesh is placed around the stoma, and the incision in the mesh is closed with 2-0 permanent suture. The mesh can be secured to the posterior rectus sheath using 2-0 interrupted Vicryl suture (optional). The anterior rectus sheath is then closed with small bites of running 0-PDS [60,61].

Keyhole technique via ostomy site — A circular incision is made at the ostomy site. A cruciate or circular incision is made in the anterior rectus sheath. A space is developed between the rectus muscle and the posterior rectus sheath using blunt dissection. A polypropylene mesh prepared with a circular cutout large enough to allow for passage of the ostomy is placed in the retromuscular space. No mesh fixation is required. The ostomy is created in the standard fashion [62].

Sugarbaker technique — Through a midline incision or laparoscopically, the colon is fixed laterally to the abdominal wall. The stoma defect and the lateral colon are covered with mesh. A composite polypropylene mesh (mesh with a visceral and parietal side) is preferred by the authors. The mesh is fixated posterior laterally with running absorbable sutures, allowing for the passage of the colon without restriction. The remaining three sides of the mesh are fixed with interrupted transfascial sutures or running absorbable sutures [63].

One randomized trial compared 150 patients with a permanent stoma and parastomal hernia undergoing open retromuscular synthetic mesh repair with either the Sugarbaker or keyhole technique [64]. The study showed no difference in parastomal hernia recurrence at two years (RR 0.87, 85% CI 0.42-1.69). There were also no differences in other outcomes, including reoperation, stoma complications, mesh complications, pain, or quality of life.

NONCLINICAL ISSUES — 

There are few surgeons using prophylactic mesh. In a survey of general surgeons, only 10.7 percent report using prophylactic mesh [65,66]. Aside from concerns about unknown long-term complications, there are several nonclinical barriers to prophylactic mesh placement:

Surgeon inexperience with abdominal wall reconstruction – Many surgeons who might see benefit from prophylactic mesh (eg, colorectal surgeons, transplant surgeons, and gynecologists) may not be familiar with advanced abdominal wall reconstruction. In a survey of colorectal surgeons, 10 percent reported using prophylactic mesh for parastomal hernia prevention compared with 22 percent of hernia surgeons who reported using prophylactic mesh for parastomal hernia prevention [67,68]. In the majority of randomized trials on prophylactic mesh placement, mesh was placed by experts, not novices. Therefore, the outcomes of these studies may not be replicable when surgery is performed by less experienced surgeons. To overcome this obstacle, either all surgeons need to be trained on how and when to place prophylactic mesh, or separate surgeons skilled in abdominal wall reconstruction could be used as "closing teams" in cases where mesh placement is warranted.

Lack of reimbursement – Placement of mesh adds extra time and risk to a procedure, but at present there is limited reimbursement. A survey of 172 surgeons showed that 22 percent were concerned about the increased time and 26 percent about the increased cost associated with mesh placement [69]. As of 2016, there is a CPT code for prophylactic mesh placement (0437T); however, this is a category III code, which is used for research and tracking. In order to have a reimbursement value assigned, it would need to be changed to a category I code.

Medicolegal concerns – More and more lawsuits are filed for complications from mesh placement. Many surgeons are not willing to accept the risk of a lawsuit only to prevent a potential problem.

Infections – In a 2023 survey, 67 percent of surgeons reported they are concerned about the potential for increased wound infections due to mesh placement [69]. Though most studies do not show an increased risk of infection with prophylactic mesh, this fear remains widespread.

Prophylactic mesh is not yet ready for widespread adoption, as there are still many unanswered questions. Future studies with long-term follow-up (at least 5 to 10 years) need to address the optimal type and location of prophylactic mesh; a standardized method for billing and reimbursement needs to be developed; and, finally, prophylactic mesh needs to be endorsed by administration and surgical societies before it can be accepted as a common practice.

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — 

Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Abdominal incisions and closure" and "Society guideline links: Parastomal hernia".)

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Benefits and risks of prophylactic mesh – For midline incisions (including emergency laparotomies), stoma creation, and off-midline incisions (eg, stomal reversal), prophylactic mesh placement reduces the short-term risk of ventral incisional hernia (VIH) formation but may incur greater risk of wound-related complications in some studies.

Other potential complications, including reoperation in the presence of a mesh, adhesions, bowel obstructions, fistulas, and chronic mesh infection requiring explantation, may occur years after mesh placement. The long-term complication profile of mesh placement is unknown, and it is not clear if the benefit of VIH prevention is worth the risk of long-term complications of mesh placement. (See 'Benefits and risks' above.)

Patient selection – We suggest against routine prophylactic mesh placement for most patients undergoing laparotomy (Grade 2C). However, some surgeons may choose to use prophylactic mesh in selected patients, such as those with one or more known risk factors for VIH. (See 'Patient selection' above.)

Surgical techniques of prophylactic mesh placement – (See 'Surgical technique' above.)

Midline incision – When indicated, there are many options for prophylactic mesh placement at midline incisions, which vary by mesh type, location, overlap, and fixation (table 2). The authors' practice is to place a mid-weight synthetic mesh in the retromuscular/preperitoneal location with a minimum of 3 cm of overlap (See 'Midline incisions' above.)

Parastomal hernia prevention – When indicated, there are three common techniques of prophylactic mesh placement at parastomal incisions (table 3). The authors' practice is a keyhole technique via a midline approach using a polypropylene mesh with 3 cm of mesh overlap in the retromuscular space. (See 'Parastomal incisions' above.)

Unresolved issues – Prophylactic mesh is not yet ready for widespread adoption, as there are still many unanswered questions, including unknown long-term efficacy and complications (eg, infection), surgeon inexperience, lack of reimbursement, and medicolegal concerns. (See 'Potential long-term complications' above and 'Nonclinical issues' above.)

  1. Olavarria OA, Dhanani NH, Bernardi K, et al. Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for Prevention of Midline Incisional Hernias: A Publication Bias Adjusted Meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2023; 277:e162.
  2. Dettori JR. Loss to follow-up. Evid Based Spine Care J 2011; 2:7.
  3. Jairam AP, López-Cano M, Garcia-Alamino JM, et al. Prevention of incisional hernia after midline laparotomy with prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. BJS Open 2020; 4:357.
  4. Tansawet A, Numthavaj P, Techapongsatorn S, et al. Mesh position for hernia prophylaxis after midline laparotomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int J Surg 2020; 83:144.
  5. Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Gambero F, et al. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement for midline incisional hernia prevention: systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hernia 2023; 27:213.
  6. Albendary M, Mohamedahmed AY, Mohamedahmed MY, et al. Evaluation of Mesh Closure of Laparotomy and Extraction Incisions in Open and Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med 2024; 13.
  7. Deerenberg EB, Henriksen NA, Antoniou GA, et al. Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies. Br J Surg 2022; 109:1239.
  8. Depuydt M, Allaeys M, de Carvalho LA, et al. Prophylactic Mesh After Midline Laparotomy: Evidence is out There, but why do Surgeons Hesitate? World J Surg 2021; 45:1349.
  9. Frassini S, Calabretto F, Granieri S, et al. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after laparotomy for elective and emergency surgery: meta-analysis. BJS Open 2023; 7.
  10. Hassan MA, Yunus RM, Khan S, Memon MA. Prophylactic Onlay Mesh Repair (POMR) Versus Primary Suture Repair (PSR) for Prevention of Incisional Hernia (IH) After Abdominal Wall Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. World J Surg 2021; 45:3080.
  11. Hew CY, Rais T, Antoniou SA, et al. 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; 109:149.
  12. Lozada Hernández EE, Maldonado Barrios IL, Amador Ramírez S, et al. Surgical site occurrence after prophylactic use of mesh for prevention of incisional hernia in midline laparotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:942.
  13. Pianka F, Werba A, Klotz R, et al. The effect of prophylactic mesh implantation on the development of incisional hernias in patients with elevated BMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 2023; 27:225.
  14. Albendary M, Mohamedahmed AYY, Alamin A, et al. Efficacy and safety of mesh closure in preventing wound failure following emergency laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022; 407:1333.
  15. Lima HVG, Rasslan R, Novo FCF, et al. Prevention of Fascial Dehiscence with Onlay Prophylactic Mesh in Emergency Laparotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Am Coll Surg 2020; 230:76.
  16. Jakob MO, Haltmeier T, Candinas D, Beldi G. Biologic mesh implantation is associated with serious abdominal wall complications in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery: A randomized-controlled clinical trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2020; 89:1149.
  17. Ulutas ME, Sahin A, Simsek G, et al. Does onlay mesh placement in emergency laparotomy prevent incisional hernia? A prospective randomized double-blind study. Hernia 2023; 27:883.
  18. Pizza F, D'Antonio D, Ronchi A, et al. Prophylactic sublay non-absorbable mesh positioning following midline laparotomy in a clean-contaminated field: randomized clinical trial (PROMETHEUS). Br J Surg 2021; 108:638.
  19. Marcolin P, Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo S, Oliveira Trindade B, et al. Prophylactic mesh augmentation in emergency laparotomy closure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis. Hernia 2024; 28:677.
  20. Hinojosa-Gonzalez DE, Saffati G, Kronstedt S, et al. Use of prophylactic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia formation: a systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. Hernia 2024; 29:22.
  21. Ramírez-Giraldo C, Van-Londoño I, Monroy DC, et al. Risk factors associated to incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2023; 38:267.
  22. Verdaguer-Tremolosa M, Garcia-Alamino JM, Rodrigues-Gonçalves V, et al. Prophylactic mesh does not prevent parastomal hernia in long-term: Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Surgery 2024; 175:441.
  23. McKechnie T, Lee J, Lee Y, et al. Prophylactic Mesh for Prevention of Parastomal Hernia Following End Colostomy: an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Gastrointest Surg 2022; 26:486.
  24. Mohiuddin S, Hollingworth W, Rajaretnam N, et al. Use of prophylactic mesh during initial stoma creation to prevent parastomal herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Colorectal Dis 2021; 23:2821.
  25. Sahebally SM, Lim TZ, Azmir AA, et al. Prophylactic mesh placement at index permanent end colostomy creation to prevent parastomal hernia-an updated meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021; 36:2007.
  26. Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS) Collaborative and West Midlands Research Collaborative. Prophylactic biological mesh reinforcement versus standard closure of stoma site (ROCSS): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2020; 395:417.
  27. Peltrini R, Imperatore N, Altieri G, et al. Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 2021; 25:639.
  28. Mohamedahmed AYY, Stonelake S, Zaman S, Hajibandeh S. Closure of stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2020; 35:1477.
  29. Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS) Collaborative and West Midlands Research Collaborative. Long-term cost-effectiveness of insertion of a biological mesh during stoma-site closure: 5-8-year follow-up of the ROCSS randomized controlled trial. Br J Surg 2024; 111.
  30. Kokotovic D, Bisgaard T, Helgstrand F. Long-term Recurrence and Complications Associated With Elective Incisional Hernia Repair. JAMA 2016; 316:1575.
  31. López-Cano M, García-Alamino JM. The Importance of Shared Decision Making in the Decision to Prevent a Parastomal Hernia With Prosthetic Mesh. J Abdom Wall Surg 2023; 2:12316.
  32. Rios-Diaz AJ, Cunning JR, Talwar AA, et al. Reoperation Through a Prosthetic-Reinforced Abdominal Wall and Its Association With Postoperative Outcomes and Longitudinal Health Care Utilization. JAMA Surg 2022; 157:908.
  33. Bosanquet DC, Ansell J, Abdelrahman T, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of Factors Affecting Midline Incisional Hernia Rates: Analysis of 14,618 Patients. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0138745.
  34. Goodenough CJ, Ko TC, Kao LS, et al. Development and validation of a risk stratification score for ventral incisional hernia after abdominal surgery: hernia expectation rates in intra-abdominal surgery (the HERNIA Project). J Am Coll Surg 2015; 220:405.
  35. Karampinis I, Lion E, Grilli M, et al. Trocar Site Hernias in Bariatric Surgery-an Underestimated Issue: a Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Obes Surg 2019; 29:1049.
  36. Kössler-Ebs JB, Grummich K, Jensen K, et al. Incisional Hernia Rates After Laparoscopic or Open Abdominal Surgery-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World J Surg 2016; 40:2319.
  37. Lee L, Saleem A, Landry T, et al. Cost effectiveness of mesh prophylaxis to prevent parastomal hernia in patients undergoing permanent colostomy for rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2014; 218:82.
  38. Udayasiri DK, Skandarajah A, Hayes IP. Laparoscopic Compared With Open Resection for Colorectal Cancer and Long-term Incidence of Adhesional Intestinal Obstruction and Incisional Hernia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2020; 63:101.
  39. Pecorelli N, Greco M, Amodeo S, Braga M. Small bowel obstruction and incisional hernia after laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of comparative trials. Surg Endosc 2017; 31:85.
  40. de Vries Reilingh TS, van Goor H, Charbon JA, et al. Repair of giant midline abdominal wall hernias: "components separation technique" versus prosthetic repair : interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 2007; 31:756.
  41. Bondre IL, Holihan JL, Askenasy EP, et al. Suture, synthetic, or biologic in contaminated ventral hernia repair. J Surg Res 2016; 200:488.
  42. Olavarria OA, Bernardi K, Dhanani NH, et al. Synthetic versus Biologic Mesh for Complex Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2021; 22:496.
  43. Harris HW, Primus F, Young C, et al. Preventing Recurrence in Clean and Contaminated Hernias Using Biologic Versus Synthetic Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair: The PRICE Randomized Clinical Trial. Ann Surg 2021; 273:648.
  44. Miserez M, Lefering R, Famiglietti F, et al. Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh in Laparoscopic and Open Ventral Hernia Repair (LAPSIS): Results of a Multinational, Randomized, Controlled, and Double-blind Trial. Ann Surg 2021; 273:57.
  45. Roth JS, Anthone GJ, Selzer DJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh in CDC class I/high-risk ventral and incisional hernia repair: 18-month follow-up. Surg Endosc 2018; 32:1929.
  46. Pizza F, D'Antonio D, Lucido FS, et al. Is absorbable mesh useful in preventing parastomal hernia after emergency surgery? The PARTHENOPE study. Hernia 2022; 26:507.
  47. Valverde S, Arbós MA, Quiles MT, et al. Use of a bioabsorbable mesh in midline laparotomy closure to prevent incisional hernia: randomized controlled trial. Hernia 2022; 26:1231.
  48. Binnebösel M, Rosch R, Junge K, et al. Biomechanical analyses of overlap and mesh dislocation in an incisional hernia model in vitro. Surgery 2007; 142:365.
  49. Eriksen JR, Bisgaard T, Assaadzadeh S, et al. Fibrin sealant for mesh fixation in laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair: 1-year results of a randomized controlled double-blinded study. Hernia 2013; 17:511.
  50. Ellis RC, Petro CC, Krpata DM, et al. Transfascial Fixation vs No Fixation for Open Retromuscular Ventral Hernia Repairs: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg 2023; 158:789.
  51. Bevis PM, Windhaber RA, Lear PA, et al. Randomized clinical trial of mesh versus sutured wound closure after open abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Br J Surg 2010; 97:1497.
  52. Beldi G, Wagner M, Bruegger LE, et al. Mesh shrinkage and pain in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial comparing suture versus tack mesh fixation. Surg Endosc 2011; 25:749.
  53. Wassenaar E, Schoenmaeckers E, Raymakers J, et al. Mesh-fixation method and pain and quality of life after laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair: a randomized trial of three fixation techniques. Surg Endosc 2010; 24:1296.
  54. Parker SG, Halligan S, Liang MK, et al. International classification of abdominal wall planes (ICAP) to describe mesh insertion for ventral hernia repair. Br J Surg 2020; 107:209.
  55. Holihan JL, Nguyen DH, Nguyen MT, et al. Mesh Location in Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. World J Surg 2016; 40:89.
  56. Tansawet A, Numthavaj P, Techapongsatorn S, et al. Risk-benefit assessment of onlay and retrorectus mesh augmentation for incisional hernia prophylaxis: A secondary analysis from network meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2021; 92:106053.
  57. Jairam AP, Timmermans L, Eker HH, et al. Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement versus primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): 2-year follow-up of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017; 390:567.
  58. Van den Dop LM, Sneiders D, Kleinrensink GJ, et al. Infectious Complication in Relation to the Prophylactic Mesh Position: The PRIMA Trial Revisited. J Am Coll Surg 2021; 232:738.
  59. Correa Marinez A, Bock D, Erestam S, et al. Methods of Colostomy Construction: No Effect on Parastomal Hernia Rate: Results from Stoma-const-A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg 2021; 273:640.
  60. Serra-Aracil X, Bombardo-Junca J, Moreno-Matias J, et al. Randomized, controlled, prospective trial of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Ann Surg 2009; 249:583.
  61. Kasperk R, Klinge U, Schumpelick V. The repair of large parastomal hernias using a midline approach and a prosthetic mesh in the sublay position. Am J Surg 2000; 179:186.
  62. Prudhomme M, Rullier E, Lakkis Z, et al. End Colostomy With or Without Mesh to Prevent a Parastomal Hernia (GRECCAR 7): A Prospective, Randomized, Double Blinded, Multicentre Trial. Ann Surg 2021; 274:928.
  63. Stelzner S, Hellmich G, Ludwig K. Repair of paracolostomy hernias with a prosthetic mesh in the intraperitoneal onlay position: modified Sugarbaker technique. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47:185.
  64. Maskal SM, Ellis RC, Fafaj A, et al. Open Retromuscular Sugarbaker vs Keyhole Mesh Placement for Parastomal Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg 2024; 159:982.
  65. Stephens IJB, Kelly E, Ferreira F, et al. Variable use of modern abdominal wall closure techniques at emergency laparotomy - an international, cross-sectional survey of surgical practice. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2025; 51:141.
  66. Fischer JP, Harris HW, López-Cano M, Hope WW. Hernia prevention: practice patterns and surgeons' attitudes about abdominal wall closure and the use of prophylactic mesh. Hernia 2019; 23:329.
  67. Holland J, Chesney T, Dossa F, et al. Do North American colorectal surgeons use mesh to prevent parastomal hernia? A survey of current attitudes and practice. Can J Surg 2019; 62:426.
  68. Lopez-Cano M, Harris HW, Fisher JP, et al. Practice Patterns and Attitudes of Surgeons on the Use of Prophylactic Mesh to Prevent Parastola Hernia: A Cross-sectional Survey. Wound Manag Prev 2019; 65:14.
  69. Paasch C, Kalmykov EL, Lorenz R, et al. Surgeons' opinions and concerns regarding prophylactic mesh placement when conducting a permanent ileo- and colostomy A survey among 172 surgeons in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Front Surg 2024; 11:1479870.
Topic 129365 Version 4.0

References