造口后预防性补片的补片类型和壁平面:一项网络meta分析。

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Hernia Pub Date : 2025-07-09 DOI:10.1007/s10029-025-03413-9
Camilo Ramírez-Giraldo, Sofía Santamaría-Forero, Isabella Van-Londoño, Jorge Navarro-Alean, Carlos Figueroa-Avendaño, Susana Rojas-López, Laura Carolina Camacho, Andrés Isaza-Restrepo
{"title":"造口后预防性补片的补片类型和壁平面:一项网络meta分析。","authors":"Camilo Ramírez-Giraldo, Sofía Santamaría-Forero, Isabella Van-Londoño, Jorge Navarro-Alean, Carlos Figueroa-Avendaño, Susana Rojas-López, Laura Carolina Camacho, Andrés Isaza-Restrepo","doi":"10.1007/s10029-025-03413-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prophylactic mesh placement lowers incisional hernia risk, but the ideal mesh type and anatomical plane remain unclear. This study aims to determine which mesh and placement site are associated with the lowest rates of incisional hernia and surgical site infection after stoma closure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase was conducted to identify comparative studies evaluating the type of mesh and/or the anatomical plane of mesh placement in the abdominal wall following stoma closure for the prevention of incisional hernias. A network meta-analysis was performed to assess incisional hernia and surgical site infection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 11 included studies involving 2,148 patients. The use of prosthetic mesh (OR = 0.137, 95%CI 0.056-0.335), bioprosthetic mesh (OR = 0.171, 95%CI 0.061-0.473), and biological mesh (OR = 0.528, 95%CI 0.336-0.828) was associated with a lower risk of incisional hernia compared to no mesh use. Mesh placement in a retromuscular position (OR = 0.068, 95%CI 0.024-0.189), onlay position (OR = 0.224, 95%CI 0.095-0.524), and intraperitoneal position (OR = 0.564, 95%CI 0.366-0.869) was associated with a lower risk of incisional hernia compared to no mesh use. No statistically significant differences were observed in surgical site infection risk between the use of different mesh types or anatomical planes and no mesh placement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Prophylactic placement of prosthetic or bioprosthetic mesh in the retromuscular plane at the time of stoma closure is the most effective approach for reducing the incidence of incisional hernia and surgical site infection.</p>","PeriodicalId":13168,"journal":{"name":"Hernia","volume":"29 1","pages":"228"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12241242/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Type of mesh and wall plane in prophylactic mesh after stoma closure: A network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Camilo Ramírez-Giraldo, Sofía Santamaría-Forero, Isabella Van-Londoño, Jorge Navarro-Alean, Carlos Figueroa-Avendaño, Susana Rojas-López, Laura Carolina Camacho, Andrés Isaza-Restrepo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10029-025-03413-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prophylactic mesh placement lowers incisional hernia risk, but the ideal mesh type and anatomical plane remain unclear. This study aims to determine which mesh and placement site are associated with the lowest rates of incisional hernia and surgical site infection after stoma closure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase was conducted to identify comparative studies evaluating the type of mesh and/or the anatomical plane of mesh placement in the abdominal wall following stoma closure for the prevention of incisional hernias. A network meta-analysis was performed to assess incisional hernia and surgical site infection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 11 included studies involving 2,148 patients. The use of prosthetic mesh (OR = 0.137, 95%CI 0.056-0.335), bioprosthetic mesh (OR = 0.171, 95%CI 0.061-0.473), and biological mesh (OR = 0.528, 95%CI 0.336-0.828) was associated with a lower risk of incisional hernia compared to no mesh use. Mesh placement in a retromuscular position (OR = 0.068, 95%CI 0.024-0.189), onlay position (OR = 0.224, 95%CI 0.095-0.524), and intraperitoneal position (OR = 0.564, 95%CI 0.366-0.869) was associated with a lower risk of incisional hernia compared to no mesh use. No statistically significant differences were observed in surgical site infection risk between the use of different mesh types or anatomical planes and no mesh placement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Prophylactic placement of prosthetic or bioprosthetic mesh in the retromuscular plane at the time of stoma closure is the most effective approach for reducing the incidence of incisional hernia and surgical site infection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hernia\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"228\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12241242/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hernia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-025-03413-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hernia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-025-03413-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:预防性补片可降低切口疝的风险,但理想的补片类型和解剖平面尚不清楚。本研究旨在确定哪个补片和放置位置与切口疝和手术部位关闭后感染的最低发生率相关。方法:对PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Embase进行系统回顾,以确定评估补片类型和/或补片在腹壁放置解剖平面的比较研究,以预防切口疝。进行网络荟萃分析以评估切口疝和手术部位感染。结果:我们纳入了11项纳入研究,涉及2148例患者。使用假体补片(OR = 0.137, 95%CI 0.056-0.335)、生物补片(OR = 0.171, 95%CI 0.061-0.473)和生物补片(OR = 0.528, 95%CI 0.336-0.828)与不使用补片相比,切口疝的风险较低。与不使用补片相比,肌后位置(OR = 0.068, 95%CI 0.024-0.189)、嵌片位置(OR = 0.224, 95%CI 0.095-0.524)和腹膜内位置(OR = 0.564, 95%CI 0.366-0.869)的切口疝风险较低。使用不同类型或解剖平面的补片与不放置补片在手术部位感染风险方面无统计学差异。结论:在造口时预防性在肌后平面放置假体或生物假体补片是减少切口疝和手术部位感染发生率的最有效方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Type of mesh and wall plane in prophylactic mesh after stoma closure: A network meta-analysis.

Background: Prophylactic mesh placement lowers incisional hernia risk, but the ideal mesh type and anatomical plane remain unclear. This study aims to determine which mesh and placement site are associated with the lowest rates of incisional hernia and surgical site infection after stoma closure.

Methods: A systematic review of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase was conducted to identify comparative studies evaluating the type of mesh and/or the anatomical plane of mesh placement in the abdominal wall following stoma closure for the prevention of incisional hernias. A network meta-analysis was performed to assess incisional hernia and surgical site infection.

Results: We included 11 included studies involving 2,148 patients. The use of prosthetic mesh (OR = 0.137, 95%CI 0.056-0.335), bioprosthetic mesh (OR = 0.171, 95%CI 0.061-0.473), and biological mesh (OR = 0.528, 95%CI 0.336-0.828) was associated with a lower risk of incisional hernia compared to no mesh use. Mesh placement in a retromuscular position (OR = 0.068, 95%CI 0.024-0.189), onlay position (OR = 0.224, 95%CI 0.095-0.524), and intraperitoneal position (OR = 0.564, 95%CI 0.366-0.869) was associated with a lower risk of incisional hernia compared to no mesh use. No statistically significant differences were observed in surgical site infection risk between the use of different mesh types or anatomical planes and no mesh placement.

Conclusion: Prophylactic placement of prosthetic or bioprosthetic mesh in the retromuscular plane at the time of stoma closure is the most effective approach for reducing the incidence of incisional hernia and surgical site infection.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hernia
Hernia SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
26.10%
发文量
171
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Hernia was founded in 1997 by Jean P. Chevrel with the purpose of promoting clinical studies and basic research as they apply to groin hernias and the abdominal wall . Since that time, a true revolution in the field of hernia studies has transformed the field from a ”simple” disease to one that is very specialized. While the majority of surgeries for primary inguinal and abdominal wall hernia are performed in hospitals worldwide, complex situations such as multi recurrences, complications, abdominal wall reconstructions and others are being studied and treated in specialist centers. As a result, major institutions and societies are creating specific parameters and criteria to better address the complexities of hernia surgery. Hernia is a journal written by surgeons who have made abdominal wall surgery their specific field of interest, but we will consider publishing content from any surgeon who wishes to improve the science of this field. The Journal aims to ensure that hernia surgery is safer and easier for surgeons as well as patients, and provides a forum to all surgeons in the exchange of new ideas, results, and important research that is the basis of professional activity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信