Oncotarget · 2017
HES1 promotes extracellular matrix protein expression and inhibits proliferation and migration in human trabecular meshwork cells under oxidative stress.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xu Linqi, Zhang Yan, Guo Ruru, Shen Wencui, Qi Yan, Wang Qingsong, Guo Zhenglong, Qi Chen, Yin Haifang, Wang Jiantao
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Incisional hernia (IH) is a frequent and expensive complication of laparotomy, occurring in up to 50% of high-risk patients. Although prophylactic mesh placement has been proposed as an effective preventive strategy of IH, its adoption remains limited due to concerns about mesh-related complications and the heterogeneity and variable quality of the available evidence. This umbrella meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the existing evidence to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic mesh reinforcement for IH prevention.
METHODS: A systematic search of multiple databases was performed until June 2025 to identify meta-analyses comparing the use of prophylactic meshes versus primary closure in adults undergoing laparotomy. Methodological quality was assessed with the AMSTAR-2, and the data were reanalyzed with random or fixed effects models. Heterogeneity (I2), study overlap (CCA), publication bias, and robustness of the results were evaluated.
RESULTS: Twenty-one meta-analyses were included. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of incisional hernia (OR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.22-0.38); this effect was consistent across different surgical settings. Mesh use was also associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.04-1.30) and seroma formation (OR = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.99-2.67). No significant differences were observed in abdominal wound dehiscence or hematoma. Overall, the evidence demonstrated a large and consistent effect, although substantial heterogeneity and signs of publication bias were present.
CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh reinforcement is associated with a reduced likelihood of incisional hernia but an increased risk of seroma and surgical site infection. Its use should be considered selectively in high-risk patients, balancing potential benefits against known complications. Further studies are needed to optimize patient selection and evaluate strategies to reduce mesh-related adverse outcomes, as well as to assess cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic search of multiple databases was performed until June 2025 to identify meta-analyses comparing the use of prophylactic meshes versus primary closure in adults undergoing laparotomy. Methodological quality was assessed with the AMSTAR-2, and the data were reanalyzed with random or fixed effects models. Heterogeneity (I2), study overlap (CCA), publication bias, and robustness of the results were evaluated.
RESULTS: Twenty-one meta-analyses were included. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of incisional hernia (OR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.22-0.38); this effect was consistent across different surgical settings. Mesh use was also associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.04-1.30) and seroma formation (OR = 2.31; 95% CI: 1.99-2.67). No significant differences were observed in abdominal wound dehiscence or hematoma. Overall, the evidence demonstrated a large and consistent effect, although substantial heterogeneity and signs of publication bias were present.
CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh reinforcement is associated with a reduced likelihood of incisional hernia but an increased risk of seroma and surgical site infection. Its use should be considered selectively in high-risk patients, balancing potential benefits against known complications. Further studies are needed to optimize patient selection and evaluate strategies to reduce mesh-related adverse outcomes, as well as to assess cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes.