Prophylactic Onlay Mesh Implantation During Definitive Fascial Closure After Open Abdomen Therapy (PROMOAT): Absorbable or Non-absorbable? Methodical Description and Results of a Feasibility Study

Abstract

Introduction: Incisional hernia development after open abdomen therapy (OAT) remains a common complication in the long run. To demonstrate the feasibility, we describe our method of prophylactic onlay mesh implantation with definitive fascial closure after open abdomen therapy (PROMOAT). To display the feasibility of this concept, we evaluated the short-term outcome after absorbable and non-absorbable synthetic mesh implantation as prophylactic onlay.Material and Methods: Ten patients were prospectively enrolled, and prophylactic onlay mesh (long-term absorbable or non-absorbable) was implanted at the definitive fascial closure operation. The cohort was followed up with a special focus on incisional hernia development and complications.Results: OAT duration was 21.0 ± 12.6 days (95% CI: 16.9–25.1). Definitive fascial closure was achieved in all cases. No incisional hernias were present during a follow-up interval of 12.4 ± 10.8 months (range 1–30 months). Two seromas and one infected hematoma occurred. The outcome did not differ between mesh types.Conclusion: The prophylactic onlay mesh implantation of alloplastic, long-term absorbable, or non-absorbable meshes in OAT showed promising results and only a few complications that were of minor concern. Incisional hernias did not occur during follow-up. To validate the feasibility and safety of prophylactic onlay mesh implantation long-term data and large-scaled prospective trials are needed to give recommendations on prophylactic onlay mesh implantation after OAT.

Continuous versus interrupted abdominal wall closure after emergency midline laparotomy: CONTINT: a randomized controlled trial [NCT00544583]

“…Furthermore, the large screened to randomized patient ratio implies a high risk of selection bias and limits the external validity of our results. Adding to that, the follow-up time of 1 year for incisional hernia might not be absolutely representative of the incisional hernia rates occurring after emergency midline laparotomy [ 41 , 42 ]. More than half of all screened patients fulfilled the exclusion criterion of previous laparotomy.…”

Don't fear the (small) bite: A narrative review of the rationale and misconceptions surrounding closure of abdominal wall incisions

“…At the same time, these patients are the ones that may profit the most from strategies to reduce wound complications which are very common in these cases. Potentially, while not the subject of this review, the use of barbed sutures ( 50 ) as well prophylactic mesh implantation have shown promising first results in such settings ( 55 ) with the updated guidelines of the European Hernia Society suggesting the latter in specific high risk situations. Further research, both primary and clinical, is needed to prevent post laparotomy wound complications in both elective and emergency settings such as emergency laparotomy and open abdomen treatment.…”

Study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled pilot study on decompressive laparotomy vs. decompressive craniectomy for intractable intracranial pressure after traumatic brain injury: The SCALPEL study

“…But using vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM) as a measure to dynamically approximate and close the rectus abdominis fascia with staged surgical procedures and a visceral protective layer to the vacuum dressing to avoid entero-atmospheric fistulas, morbidity of that procedure will be much lower than 20 years ago ( Beltzer et al, 2016 ; Coccolini et al, 2018 ; Schaaf et al, 2020 ; Weigelt and Kingman, 1988 ; Willms et al, 2015 , 2020 , 2022 ).…”