Background Incisional hernias are a common complication of emergency laparotomy and are associated with significant morbidity. Recent studies have found a reduction in incisional hernias when mesh is placed prophylactically during abdominal closure in elective laparotomies. This systematic review will assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement in emergency laparotomy. Methods A systematic review was performed according to the PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42018109283). Papers were dual screened for eligibility, and included when a comparison was made between closure with prophylactic mesh and closure with a standard technique, reported using a comparative design (i.e. case-control, cohort or randomised trial), where the primary outcome was incisional hernia. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in non-randomised studies tool. A meta-analysis of incisional hernia rate was performed to estimate risk ratio using a random effects model (Mantel-Haenszel approach). Results 332 studies were screened for eligibility, 29 full texts were reviewed and 2 non-randomised studies were included. Both studies were biased due to confounding factors, as closure technique was based on patient risk factors for incisional hernia. Both studies found significantly fewer incisional hernias in the mesh groups [3.2% vs 28.6% (p < 0.001) and 5.9% vs 33.3% (p = 0.0001)]. A meta-analysis of incisional hernia risk favoured prophylactic mesh closure [risk ratio 0.15 (95% CI 0.6-0.35, p < 0.001)]. Neither study found an association between mesh and infection or enterocutaneous fistula. Conclusion This review found that there are limited data to assess the effect or safety profile of prophylactic mesh in the emergency laparotomy setting. The current data cannot reliably assess the use of mesh due to confounding factors, and a randomised controlled trial is required to address this important clinical question.Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P &lt; 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P &lt; 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background Acutely symptomatic abdominal wall and groin hernias are a common reason for acute surgical hospital admissions. There are limited data to guide the treatment of these patients. This study aimed to assess outcomes of emergency hernia surgery and identify common management strategies, to improve care for these high-risk patients. Methods A 20-week, national multicentre, collaborative, prospective cohort study (NCT04197271) recruited adults with acutely symptomatic abdominal wall and groin hernias across the UK. Data on patient characteristics, inpatient management, quality of life, complications, and wound healing were collected. Follow-up telephone calls at 30 and 90 days were used to assessed complications and quality of life. Descriptive analyses were undertaken to describe the population and outcomes. Results Twenty-three hospitals recruited 272 eligible patients. Inguinal (37.8 per cent) and umbilical (37.1 per cent) hernias were the most common. Some 13.9 per cent were awaiting elective surgery and 12.8 per cent had previously declined intervention. CT was performed in 47.1 per cent and 81.3 per cent underwent surgical management. Open repairs were carried out in 93.5 per cent, and 92.5 per cent of these were performed under general anaesthesia. Four of 13 laparoscopic procedures were converted to open surgery. Mesh was used in 55.1 per cent of repairs, typically synthetic non-absorbable (87.4 per cent). Complications were infrequent; surgical-site infection (9.4 per cent), delirium (3.2 per cent), and pneumonia (2.3 per cent) were the most common. The 90-day mortality rate was 4.9 per cent. Immediate surgical management was associated with a significant improvement in quality of life at 30 days (median score 0.73–0.82). Conclusion There is variation in the investigation, management, and surgical technique used to treat acutely symptomatic abdominal wall and groin hernias in the UK. The optimal management strategy for specific acute presentations remains to be established. Presented to the Association of Surgeons in Training Conference, Birmingham, UK, March 2021, the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland Congress, May 2021, the World Society of Emergency Surgery, Edinburgh, UK, September 2021, and the European Hernia Society Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 2021.

No abstract

Background Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of patients with cIAI in a multicentre study and to develop clinical prediction models (CPMs) to help identify patients at risk of mortality or relapse. Methods A multicentre observational study was conducted from August 2016 to February 2017 in the UK. Adult patients diagnosed with cIAI were included. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to develop CPMs for mortality and cIAI relapse. The c-statistic was used to test model discrimination. Model calibration was tested using calibration slopes and calibration in the large (CITL). The CPMs were then presented as point scoring systems and validated further. Results Overall, 417 patients from 31 surgical centres were included in the analysis. At 90 days after diagnosis, 17.3 per cent had a cIAI relapse and the mortality rate was 11.3 per cent. Predictors in the mortality model were age, cIAI aetiology, presence of a perforated viscus and source control procedure. Predictors of cIAI relapse included the presence of collections, outcome of initial management, and duration of antibiotic treatment. The c-statistic adjusted for model optimism was 0.79 (95 per cent c.i. 0.75 to 0.87) and 0.74 (0.73 to 0.85) for mortality and cIAI relapse CPMs. Adjusted calibration slopes were 0.88 (95 per cent c.i. 0.76 to 0.90) for the mortality model and 0.91 (0.88 to 0.94) for the relapse model; CITL was −0.19 (95 per cent c.i. −0.39 to −0.12) and − 0.01 (− 0.17 to −0.03) respectively. Conclusion Relapse of infection and death after complicated intra-abdominal infections are common. Clinical prediction models were developed to identify patients at increased risk of relapse or death after treatment, although these require external validation.