Oxygen is an important factor for wound healing. Although several different therapies investigated the use of oxygen to aid wound healing, the results of these studies are not unequivocal. This systematic review summarizes the clinical and experimental studies regarding different oxygen therapies for promoting wound healing, and evaluates the outcomes according the methodological details. A systematic literature search was conducted using Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed publisher, and Google Scholar libraries. Clinical and experimental studies investigating oxygen for wound healing were selected. Included articles were categorized according to the kind of therapy, study design, and wound type. The methodological details were extracted and analyzed. Sixty-five articles were identified and divided in three different oxygen therapies: Local oxygen therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and supplemental inspired oxygen therapy. More than half of the included local oxygen and hyperbaric oxygen studies had one or more significant positive outcomes, 77 and 63%, respectively. Supplemental inspired oxygen therapy during gastrointestinal and vascular surgery was more likely to have a positive result than during other surgical interventions reducing surgical site infections. These many positive outcomes promote the use of oxygen treatment in the stimulation of wound healing. However, the lack of clinical studies and vast methodological diversity made it impossible to perform a proper comparison within and between the different therapies. Further randomized clinical studies are warranted to examine the value of these therapies, especially studies that investigate the more patient-friendly oxygen dressings and topical wound oxygen therapies. Also, to achieve more solid and consistent data, studies should use more standardized methods and subjects.

Background Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim of these updated guidelines was to provide recommendations to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia. Methods A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed on 22 January 2022. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network instrument was used to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCTs, and cohort studies. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to appraise the certainty of the evidence. The guidelines group consisted of surgical specialists, a biomedical information specialist, certified guideline methodologist, and patient representative. Results Thirty-nine papers were included covering seven key questions, and weak recommendations were made for all of these. Laparoscopic surgery and non-midline incisions are suggested to be preferred when safe and feasible. In laparoscopic surgery, suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus. For closure of an elective midline laparotomy, a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomy can be considered to reduce the risk of incisional hernia; a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position is advised. Conclusion These updated guidelines may help surgeons in selecting the optimal approach and location of abdominal wall incisions.

Although the majority of studies included were retrospective, extraperitoneal colostomy was observed to lead to a lower rate of parastomal hernia and stoma prolapse.

Stoma site incisional hernia should not be underestimated as a long-term problem. Body mass index, diabetes and malignancy seem to be potential risk factors. Currently, limited data are available on the outcomes of prophylactic mesh reinforcement to prevent stoma site incisional hernia.

Purpose Data on primary (PH) and incisional hernias (IH) are often pooled, even though several studies have illustrated that these are different entities with worse outcomes for IHs. The aim of this study is to validate previous research comparing PHs and IHs and to examine whether hernia width is an important contributor to the differences between these hernia types. Methods A registry-based, prospective cohort study was performed, utilizing the French Hernia Club database. All patients undergoing PH or IH repair between September 8th 2011 and May 22nd 2019 were included. Baseline, hernia and surgical characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Outcomes were analyzed per width category (≤ 2 cm, 3–4 cm, 5–10 cm and > 10 cm). Results A total of 9159 patients were included, of whom 4965 (54%) had PH and 4194 (46%) had IH. PHs and IHs differed significantly in 12/15 baseline characteristics, 9/10 hernia and surgical characteristics, and all outcomes. Overall, complications and re-interventions were more common in patients with IH. After correcting for width, the differences between PH and IH were no longer significant, except for medical complications, which were more common after IH repair compared to PH. Conclusion After correcting for hernia width, most outcomes do not significantly differ between PH and IH, indicating that not hernia type, but hernia width is an important factor contributing to the differences between PH and IH.