Does the Choice of Extraction Site During Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery Change the Incidence of Incisional Hernia? Protocol for a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: Various sites are used for specimen extraction in oncological minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The objective is to determine if the choice of extraction site modulates the incidence of incisional hernia (IH). Methods/design: A systematic review will be performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL will be searched to look for original studies reporting the incidence of IH after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Studies will be excluded from the analysis if: 1) they do not report original data, 2) the outcome of interest (incidence of incisional hernia) is not clearly reported and does not allow to extrapolate and/or calculate the required data for network meta-analysis, 3) they include pediatric patients, 4) they include a patients’ population with a conversion rate to laparotomy >10%, 5) they do not compare at least two different extraction sites for the operative specimen, 6) they report patients who underwent pure (and not hybrid) natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Network meta-analysis will be performed to determine the incidence of IH per extraction site. Discussion: By determining which specimen extraction site leads to reduced rate of IH, this systematic review and network meta-analysis will help colorectal surgeons to choose their extraction site and reduce the morbidity and costs associated with IH. Registration: The systematic review and meta-analysis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with number CRD42021272226. Highlights Various sites are used for specimen extraction in oncological minimally invasive colorectal surgery, and the choice of the site may probably modulate the incidence of incisional hernia. The present protocol aims to design a systematic review which will identify original studies comparing two extraction sites during minimally invasive colorectal surgery in terms of incidence of incisional hernia. Network meta-analysis will be performed to determine the incidence of IH per extraction site.

Hand‐Assisted Versus Pure Minimally‐Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: Is There a Downside to Lending a Hand?

“…Hernia formation is associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life [10]. The associated risks include worsening function as hernia increases in size, skin breakdown, incarceration, or strangulation requiring emergent surgery [24, 25]. These repairs have a significant economic impact, with an estimated $3.2 billion spent annually in the United States on the surgical management of ventral hernia [26].…”

Clinical observation of extraction-site incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery

“…Tumor specimens are typically extracted by enlarging the trocar during radical laparoscopic procedures for colorectal cancer. This is commonly achieved through supraumbilical midline, infraumbilical midline, umbilical, and off-midline incisions[ 1 ] of approximately 4-6 cm in length. Although these incisions are significantly substantially smaller than an open incision, they can lead to complications such as incisional hernia (IH).…”