MedElevator
Войти в исследования Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2019
Prophylactic mesh placement to avoid incisional hernias after stoma reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
van den Hil L C L, van Steensel S, Schreinemacher M H F, Bouvy N D
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To provide an overview of the available literature on prevention of incisional hernias after stoma reversal, with the use of prophylactic meshes.
METHODS: A literature search of Pubmed, MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. Search terms for stoma, enterostomy, mesh, prophylaxis and hernia were used. Search was updated to December 31th 2018. No time limitations were used, while English, Geman, Dutch and French were used as language restrictions. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia formation after stoma reversal. Secondary outcomes were mesh-related complications. Data on study design, sample size, patient characteristics, stoma and mesh characteristics, duration of follow-up and outcomes were extracted from the included articles.
RESULTS: A number of 241 articles were identified and three studies with 536 patients were included. A prophylactic mesh was placed in 168 patients to prevent incisional hernias after stoma reversal. Follow-up ranged from 10 to 21 months. The risk of incisional hernia in case of prophylactic mesh placement was significantly lower in comparison to no mesh placement (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.27, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%, CI 0-91.40%). No differences in surgical site infections were detected between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a prophylactic mesh seems to reduce the risk on incisional hernias after stoma reversal and therefore mesh reinforcement should be considered after stoma reversal.
METHODS: A literature search of Pubmed, MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. Search terms for stoma, enterostomy, mesh, prophylaxis and hernia were used. Search was updated to December 31th 2018. No time limitations were used, while English, Geman, Dutch and French were used as language restrictions. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia formation after stoma reversal. Secondary outcomes were mesh-related complications. Data on study design, sample size, patient characteristics, stoma and mesh characteristics, duration of follow-up and outcomes were extracted from the included articles.
RESULTS: A number of 241 articles were identified and three studies with 536 patients were included. A prophylactic mesh was placed in 168 patients to prevent incisional hernias after stoma reversal. Follow-up ranged from 10 to 21 months. The risk of incisional hernia in case of prophylactic mesh placement was significantly lower in comparison to no mesh placement (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.27, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%, CI 0-91.40%). No differences in surgical site infections were detected between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of a prophylactic mesh seems to reduce the risk on incisional hernias after stoma reversal and therefore mesh reinforcement should be considered after stoma reversal.