Front. Surg. Frontiers in Surgery Front. Surg. 2296-875X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00053 Surgery Review Prevention of Incisional Hernias with Biological Mesh: A Systematic Review of the Literature Muysoms Filip E. 1 * † Jairam An 2 † López-Cano Manuel 3 Śmietański Maciej 4 5 Woeste Guido 6 Kyle-Leinhase Iris 1 Antoniou Stavros A. 7 8 Köckerling Ferdinand 9 BioMesh Study Group ‡ Köckerling Ferdinand Antoniou Stavros Fortelny René Granderath Frank A. Heiss Markus Mayer Franz Miserez Marc Montgomery Agneta Morales-Conde Salvador Muysoms Filip Petter-Puchner Alexander Pointner Rudolph Smart Neil Smietanski Marciej Stechemesser Bernd 1Department of Surgery, Maria Middelares, Gent, Belgium 2Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands 3Vall’d Hebron Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain 4Department of Surgery, District Hospital in Puck, Puck, Poland 5Department of Radiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland 6Klinikum der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, Germany 7Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery, Hospital Neuwerk, Mönchengladbach, Germany 8Department of General Surgery, University of Heraklion, Crete, Greece 9Vivantes Hospital, Berlin, Germany

Edited by: Vincenzo Neri, University of Foggia, Italy

Reviewed by: Gabriel Sandblom, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; Piero Chirletti, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

 *Correspondence: Filip E. Muysoms, filip.muysoms@azmmsj.be

†Dr. Filip E. Muysoms and Dr. An Jairam have contributed equally to this study.

‡The members of the BioMesh Study Group are listed at the end of the article.

Specialty section: This article was submitted to Visceral Surgery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Surgery

 26 09 2016 2016 3 53 30 07 2016 09 09 2016 Copyright © 2016 Muysoms, Jairam, López-Cano, Śmietański, Woeste, Kyle-Leinhase, Antoniou, Köckerling and BioMesh Study Group. 2016 Muysoms, Jairam, López-Cano, Śmietański, Woeste, Kyle-Leinhase, Antoniou, Köckerling and BioMesh Study Group

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 Background

Prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during closure of abdominal wall incisions has been proposed in patients with increased risk for development of incisional hernias (IHs). As part of the BioMesh consensus project, a systematic literature review has been performed to detect those studies where MAR was performed with a non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic).

 Methods

A computerized search was performed within 12 databases (Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, Pubmed publisher, Lilacs, Scielo, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google Scholar) with appropriate search terms. Qualitative evaluation was performed using the MINORS score for cohort studies and the Jadad score for randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

 Results

For midline laparotomy incisions and stoma reversal wounds, two RCTs, two case–control studies, and two case series were identified. The studies were very heterogeneous in terms of mesh configuration (cross linked versus non-cross linked), mesh position (intraperitoneal versus retro-muscular versus onlay), surgical indication (gastric bypass versus aortic aneurysm), outcome results (effective versus non-effective). After qualitative assessment, we have to conclude that the level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of biological meshes for prevention of IHs is very low. No comparative studies were found comparing biological mesh with synthetic non-absorbable meshes for the prevention of IHs.

 Conclusion

There is no evidence supporting the use of non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic) for prevention of IHs when closing a laparotomy in high-risk patients or in stoma reversal wounds. There is no evidence that a non-permanent absorbable mesh should be preferred to synthetic non-absorbable mesh, both in clean or clean-contaminated surgery.

 incisional hernia prevention prophylaxis biological mesh bio-absorbable mesh systematic review Introduction

Prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during closure of abdominal wall incisions has been proposed in patients at high risk for incisional hernia (IH). Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have been published on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients undergoing aortic aneurysm surgery (1–4), obesity surgery (3, 5–7), stoma creation (8–14), in colorectal cancer patients (15, 16), or other high-risk patients (17, 18). The recently published guidelines of the European Hernia Society have provided the following weak recommendation: “Prophylactic mesh augmentation for an elective midline laparotomy in high-risk patients in order to reduce the risk of incisional hernias is suggested.” Due to the lack of sufficient data, no recommendations on the type of mesh, the optimal mesh position, or the optimal mesh fixation technique could be made (19). Although prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement has been performed safely in clean-contaminated setting, one concern is the potential short- or long-term harms by implantation of a permanent mesh (20). Application of a non-permanent absorbable for prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement might therefore hold some benefit if these meshes will be as effective as permanent meshes.

A systematic literature review has been performed to detect those studies where prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement was performed with a non-permanent absorbable biological or biosynthetic mesh and provide guidance for future research on the use of biological or biosynthetic meshes.

 Methods Protocol

The systematic search was part of the BioMesh consensus project. This project, initiated by Ferdinand Köckerling, gathered surgical expertise in a working group to provide a summary on the use of non-permanent absorbable biological or biosynthetic meshes in different indications. During a consensus meeting in Berlin on January 27, 2016, the working group decided in consensus on the statements and conclusions derived from the level of evidence for each indication. This manuscript reports on the review of the use of non-permanent absorbable biological or biosynthetic meshes for the prevention of IHs.

 Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion criteria: because of the paucity of available studies on prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement with biological or biosynthetic mesh for the prevention of IHs, no limitation, to the study design, length of follow-up, or number of included patients, was used.

Exclusion criteria: prevention of parastomal hernias were excluded because this was part of a separate search within the BioMesh study group (21).

 Information Sources

A computerized search was performed within 12 databases (Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, Pubmed publisher, Lilacs, Scielo, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google Scholar) on June 25, 2015.

 Search

The biomedical librarian of the Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands performed the search, and the search strategy is provided in Section “Addendum 1” in Appendix.

 Study Selection

From the search, only the studies reporting on the use of a non-permanent absorbable biological or biosynthetic mesh were retained. Studies written in English, Dutch, French, and Spanish were considered.

 Data Collection Process

Two authors (Filip Etienne Muysoms and An Jairam) independently screened all records retrieved upon application of the search strategy by title and abstract. The full text of all retained records was screened for eligibility. The references of all review articles found were cross-checked for additional eligible records.

 Data Items

The following data were extracted by two authors independently and cross-checked: type of study, number of patients included, patient characteristics, indication for surgery, type of biological mesh, position of the mesh, method of mesh fixation, length of follow-up, and outcome measures (hernias, seroma, wound infections, burst abdomen). Primary outcome was IH incidence, and secondary outcomes were postoperative seroma, wound infection, and burst abdomen.

 Quality Assessment of Individual Studies

Qualitative evaluation was performed using the MINORS score for non-randomized studies (22) and the Jadad score for RCTs (23). Additionally, the quality of evidence across the RCTs was done using the GRADE Pro software.1

 Statistical Analysis

A meta-analysis of the outcome from the RCTs detected was performed for relevant outcomes: IH, seroma, wound infections, and burst abdomen. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.3 software (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2013). Our outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to estimate the pooled effect size and p-value. All tests were two-sided.

 Results Study Selection

The PRISMA flow diagram of our search is illustrated in Figure 1. Six studies were retained after the screening and sift for eligibility. Four studies included patients with midline laparotomy (2, 7, 24, 25), and two studies investigated the prevention of IHs after stoma reversal (26, 27).

PRISMA flow diagram of a systematic review on the use of biological mesh for prevention of incisional hernias.

 Study Characteristics Midline Laparotomy

Our literature review revealed four studies where a biological mesh was used to prevent IHs in high-risk patients. Details of the study characteristics and quality assessment (MINORS score, Jadad score) are shown in the summary of evidence table (Table 1). A small cohort study on eight patients that underwent a midline laparotomy for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) described short-term outcome using an intraperitoneal biological mesh (24). In a prospective non-randomized case–control study, obese patients operated for a gastric bypass through a midline laparotomy were either treated with an intraperitoneal biological mesh (n = 59) or primary suture closure (n = 75). A significant reduction in the number of IHs by prophylactic mesh was reported [2.3% (90% CI: 2.31–6.86) versus 17.7% (90% CI: 7.92–27.52), p = 0.014] (25). In an RCT in obese patients undergoing a gastric bypass operation through a midline laparotomy, patients were randomized between an intraperitoneal biological mesh (n = 185) and primary suture closure (n = 195). This adequately powered RCT, did not show any benefit for prophylactic mesh concerning the risk for IH at 24 months (17.3 versus 19.5%, p = 0.60), but did show a significant higher number of wound infections and wound seroma in the mesh group (7). In an RCT of aortic aneurysm patients, midline laparotomy closure with an onlay biologic mesh (n = 20) was compared to primary suture closure (n = 20) (2). The study was not powered with a sample size calculation, but the follow up was adequate in length (36 months) and methodology (systematic CT scan evaluation). A highly significant protective effect of the mesh was shown, with no hernias in the mesh group and 32% in the non-mesh group [cumulative freedom of IH at 36 months was 100 versus 74.4% (p < 0.008)] (2).

Summary of evidence table of a systematic review on the use of biological mesh for the prevention of incisional hernias after midline laparotomy.

Reference Study type Quality assessment N (mesh/no mesh) Patient characteristics Intervention Comparison Length of follow-up (months) Outcome measure
Boutros et al. (24) Non-comparative case series MINORS score 5/16 8/– Midline laparotomy for cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC in peritoneal carcinoma patients Intraperitoneal Surgisis 20 cm × 20 cm fixed with PDS sutures – Mean 6.3 Seven patients had no abdominal wall morbidity. One patient had an incisional hernia and entero-cutaneous fistula following re-laparotomy 2 weeks after the primary operation
General comments: very low MINORS score of this case series. Follow-up inadequate to make conclusion about incisional hernia rate
Funding: no direct funding; speakers fee from Cook
Study registration: no
Llaguna et al. (25) Prospective case–control study MINORS score 19/24 134 (59/75) Patients undergoing gastric bypass surgery with midline laparotomy Intraperitoneal Alloderm 16-cm long and 6-cm wide, fixed with PDS sutures Sutured with PDS no 1, running suture Mean 17.3 Incisional hernia: mesh: 1/44 (2%); no mesh: 11/62 (18%); p = 0.014 (OR 0.06)
General comments: prospective single surgeon non-randomized study, with adequate follow-up. Statistical significant differences on the number of patients with some confounding factors were seen: prior abdominal surgery, postoperative BMI
Funding: not mentioned
Study registration: no
Sarr et al. (7) RCT JADAD score 2/5 402 (185/195) Patients undergoing gastric bypass surgery with midline laparotomy Intraperitoneal Surgisis 8-cm wide fixed with PDS sutures Suture non-absorbable and absorbable, running suture 24 Incisional hernia: mesh: 32/185 (17.3%); no mesh: 38/195 (19.5%); p = 0.60; wound infections: 11.9% versus 3.6% (p < 0.003); wound seroma: 4.9% versus 0.5% (p < 0.01)
General comments: open label RCT with adequate sample calculation and power. Showed no difference in incisional hernia rate. The number of clinically relevant wound infections and wound seroma was significant higher in the Mesh group
Funding: industry-funded study (Cook Biotech, Inc., West Lafayette, IN, USA)
Study registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00274625
Bali et al. (2) RCT JADAD score 1/5 40 (20/20) Elective midline laparotomy for AAA repair Onlay periguard 8-cm wide fixed with non-absorbable sutures Sutured with PDS no 1, running suture 36 Incisional hernia: mesh: 0/20 (0%); no mesh: 6/20 (32%); estimate freedom of incisional hernia was significantly higher for the mesh group (p < 0.008)
General comments: small open label RCT, no sample size calculation. Prophylactic mesh was effective and safe
Funding: not mentioned
Study registration: no
Stoma Reversal Wound

Our literature review revealed two studies in which a biological mesh was used to prevent IHs after reversal of a temporary ileostomy. Details of the studies are shown in the summary of evidence table (Table 2). In a pilot study with a limited patient population (n = 7), the feasibility of an intraperitoneal prophylactic mesh was investigated in terms of safety in the short term (27). The second report was a matched case–control study of 30 patients that received a retro-muscular prophylactic biological mesh, compared to 64 matched patients with suture closure of the stoma wound. At 1-year follow-up with CT scan, the number of patients with IH was significantly lower for the mesh group (p = 0.043).

Summary of evidence table of a systematic review on the use of biological mesh for prevention of incisional hernias after stoma reversal.

Reference Study type Quality assessment N (mesh/no mesh) Patient characteristics Intervention Comparison Length of follow-up Outcome measure
Bhangu et al. (26) Non-comparative case series MINORS score 4/16 7/– Patients with a temporary ileostomy needing stoma closure Intraperitoneal Strattice 3-cm overlap fixed with PDS sutures – 30 days One superficial wound infection. No early hernias
General comments: very low MINORS score of this case series. Follow-up inadequate to make conclusion about incisional hernia rate. This study is a pilot study on the safety of the technique, before starting a large RCT
Funding: industry-funded study
Study registration: part of the ROCCS study: www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02238964
Maggiori et al. (27) Matched case–control study MINORS score 15/24 94 (30/64) Closure of a diverting ileostomy following rectal cancer resection Retro-muscular Meccellis mesh 10 cm × 10 cm, fixed with prolene sutures Two layer continuous suture of anterior and posterior fascia with Vicryl 1 1 year Radiological incisional hernia rate mesh: 1/30 (3%); no mesh: 12/64 (19%) p = 0.043
General comments: Significant reduction of the number of incisional hernias at the stoma wound diagnosed with CT scan. No difference in morbidity
Funding: industry-funded study
Study registration: no
Meta-analysis

The pooled analysis for the outcome IH showed no statistical differences between groups (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04–3.83; p = 0.41). The forest plots of the meta-analysis of the two RCTs on prevention of midline laparotomy IHs, and the secondary outcomes are shown in Figure 2.

Forest plots and risk of bias assessment of randomized studies on the prevention of incisional hernias by biological mesh reinforcement.

 Discussion Midline Laparotomy

Overall, the Level of Evidence on the efficacy of biological mesh to prevent IHs is very low. Moreover, the study with the highest level of evidence and lowest risk of bias did not show any advantage in reducing IHs by prophylactic intraperitoneal biological mesh in patients undergoing a midline laparotomy for performing gastric bypass surgery (7). On the contrary, it did show a higher number of wound complications after the use of the prophylactic mesh. Another study regarding gastric bypass patients did show a benefit, but this study was non-randomized and had a high risk of bias (25).

For aortic aneurysm patients, only one RCT is available, which showed a high efficacy with 3 years follow-up. However, this study was poorly powered, non-blinded, and scored low in the Jadad scale (2). Moreover, no information on sources of funding and protocol registration was provided, and therefore, the risk of bias cannot be assessed.

The currently available evidence is not strong enough to make any statements regarding the optimal mesh position (intraperitoneal, retro-muscular, or onlay) in case a prophylactic biological mesh is used. Also, the different meshes used in the studies (non-cross-linked human origin; non-cross-linked porcine small intestinal submucosa; cross-linked bovine pericardium) might have an important impact on the outcome.

On the contrary, the Level of Evidence on the efficacy of prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh (all polypropylene) in high-risk patients currently is high, with 8 published RCTs encompassing 727 patients with a follow-up of at least 12 months (1, 4–6, 15–18). Moreover, the safety of prophylactic retro-muscular or onlay meshes in clean or clean-contaminated surgery is shown in 9 published RCTs encompassing 1207 patients (1, 3–6, 15–18).

No comparative studies were found comparing biological mesh with synthetic non-absorbable meshes for the prevention of IHs. There is a study ongoing at the Vall d’Hebron Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona on the prevention of IHs from midline laparotomies using an absorbable synthetic mesh (Bio-A, WL Gore & Ass, USA), PREBIOUS trial.2

 Stoma Reversal Wound

Overall, the Level of Evidence on the efficacy of biological mesh to prevent IHs of stoma reversal wounds is very low. Currently, the only study providing evidence is a matched case–control study, showing a lower IH rate at 1 year. This study is a pilot study for an RCT that is planned in France, the MEMBO trial3 (27). The small pilot study by Banghu et al. is part of a large project, the ROCSS study, which is a properly powered multicenter RCT from the University of Birmingham4 (26). This study compares the technique described in the pilot study with sutured closure of the stoma wound and has now included 790 patients, and the follow-up is ongoing. Furthermore, a study from the Vall d’Hebron Hospital (Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona), ILEOCLOSE study,5 will investigate in a RCT the application of prophylactic mesh reinforcement of closure of temporary diverting ileostomy with an absorbable synthetic mesh (Bio-A) in 120 patients.

 Conclusion

So far, there is no solid evidence on the effectiveness of prophylactic non-permanent absorbable biological or biosynthetic mesh for the closure of midline laparotomies or reinforcement of a stoma reversal site. There is no evidence that, in this setting, a non-permanent absorbable biological or biosynthetic mesh should be preferred to synthetic non-absorbable mesh, both in clean or clean-contaminated surgery.

 Publication Statement

This manuscript was written in accordance with the PRISMA statement: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health-care interventions: guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials.6

 Author Contributions

All authors: initiation of the project, determination of search strategy, reviewing manuscript, and agreement. FM and AJ: systematic search at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands, data collection process, and writing the manuscript. FM, AJ, FK, and IK-L: study selection from retrieved records. FM, AJ, ML-C, SA, MS, GW, and FK: qualitative evaluation of the retrieved records. FM, AJ, ML-C, and IK-L: quantitative evaluation of the retrieved records.

 BioMesh Study Group

Ferdinand Köckerling (Chairman), Stavros Antoniou, René Fortelny, Frank A. Granderath, Markus Heiss, Franz Mayer, Marc Miserez, Agneta Montgomery, Salvador Morales-Conde, Filip Muysoms, Alexander Petter-Puchner, Rudolph Pointner, Neil Smart, Marciej Smietanski, and Bernd Stechemesser.

 Conflict of Interest Statement

Dr. FM reports grants and personal fees from Covidien, grants and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, personal fees from WL Gore & Ass, personal fees from Bard Davol, grants and non-financial support from FEG DynaMesh, grants and personal fees from B. Braun, outside the submitted work; Dr. AJ reports no conflict of interest concerning the work. Dr. ML-C has received honoraria for consultancy and lectures from Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson, personal fees from Bard Davol, and grants from WL Gore & Ass, outside the submitted work. Dr. IK-L reports no conflict of interest concerning the work. Dr. MS reports fees for teaching and learning from Medtronic, Bard Davol, B. Braun, and Ehticon, outside of the submitted work. Dr. GW reports grants and consulting fees from Acelity, B. Braun, and Bard Davol, outside the submitted work. Dr. SA reports absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Dr. FK reports no conflict of interest concerning the work.

 References Bevis PM Windhaber RAJ Lear PA Poskitt KR Earnshaw JJ Mitchell DC. Randomized clinical trial of mesh versus sutured wound closure after open abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Br J Surg (2010) 7:1497–502.10.1002/bjs.7137 Bali C Papakostas J Georgiou G Kouvelos G Avgos S Arnoutoglou E A comparative study of sutured versus bovine pericardium mesh abdominal closure after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Hernia (2015) 19:267–71.10.1007/s10029-014-1262-424820007 Timmermans L Eker HH Steyenberg EW Jairam A de Jong D Pierik EG Short-term results of a randomized controlled trial comparing primary suture with primary glued mesh augmentation to prevent incisional hernia. Ann Surg (2015) 261:276–81.10.1097/SLA.000000000000079824983993 Muysoms FE Detry O Vierendeels T Huyghe M Miserez M Ruppert M Prevention if incisional hernia by prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement of midline laparotomies for abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment. Ann Surg (2016) 263:638–45.10.1097/SLA.0000000000001369 Strzelczyk JM Szymanski D Nowicki ME Wilczynski W Gaszynski T Czupryniak L. Randomized clinical trial of postoperative hernia prophylaxis in open bariatric surgery. Br J Surg (2006) 93:1347–50.10.1002/bjs.551217006977 Abo-Ryia MH El-Khadrawy OH Abd-Allah HS. Prophylactic preperitoneal mesh placement in open bariatric surgery: a guard against incisional hernia development. Obes Surg (2013) 23:1571–4.10.1007/s11695-013-0915-123512444 Sarr MG Hutcher NE Snyder S Hodde J Carmody B. A prospective, randomized, multicenter trial of Surgisis Gold, a biologic prosthetic, as a sublay reinforcement of the fascial closure after open bariatric surgery. Surgery (2014) 156:902–9.10.1016/j.surg.2014.06.02225239343 Hammond TM Huang A Prosser K Frye JN Williams NS. Parastomal hernia prevention using a novel collagen implant: a randomised controlled phase 1 study. Hernia (2008) 12:475–81.10.1007/s10029-008-0383-z18484151 Jänes A Cengiz Y Israelsson LA. Preventing parastomal hernia with a prosthetic mesh: a 5-year follow-up of a randomised study. World J Surg (2009) 33:118–23.10.1007/s00268-008-9785-4 Serra-Aracil X Bombardo-Junca J Moreno-Matias J Darnell A Mora-Lopez L Alcantara-Moral M Randomized, controlled, prospective trial of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Ann Surg (2009) 249:583–7.10.1097/SLA.0b013e31819ec80919300232 López-Cano M Lozoya-Trujillo R Quiroga S Sanchez JL Vallribera F Marti M Use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia during laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: a randomized controlled trial. Hernia (2012) 16:661–7.10.1007/s10029-012-0952-z22782367 Fleshman JW Beck DE Hyman N Wexner SD Bauer J George V A prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study of non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix fascial sublay for parastomal reinforcement in patients undergoing surgery for permanent abdominal wall ostomies. Dis Colon Rectum (2014) 57:623–31.10.1097/DCR.000000000000010624819103 Lambrecht JR Larsen SG Reiertsen O Vaktskjold A Julsrud L Flatmark K. Prophylactic mesh at end-colostomy construction reduces parastomal hernia rate: a randomized trial. Colorectal Dis (2015) 17:O191–7.10.1111/codi.1306526179984 Vierimaa M Klintrup K Biancari F Victorzon M Carpelan-Holmstrom M Kossi J Prospective, randomized study on the use of a prosthetic mesh for prevention of parastomal hernia of permanent colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum (2015) 58:943–9.10.1097/DCR.000000000000044326347966 Caro-Tarrago A Olona Casas C Jimenez Salido A Duque Guillera E Moreno Fernadez F Vicente Guillen V. Prevention of incisional hernia in midline laparotomy with an onlay mesh: a randomized clinical trial. World J Surg (2014) 38:2223–30.10.1007/s00268-014-2510-624663481 Garcia-Urena MA Lopez-Monclus J Blazquez Hernando LA Melero Montes D Valle de Lersundi RA Pavon CC Randomized controlled trial of the use of a large-pore polypropylene mesh to prevent incisional hernia in colorectal surgery. Ann Surg (2015) 261:876–81.10.1097/SLA.000000000000111625575254 Gutierrez de la Pena C Medina Achirica C Dominguez-Adame E Medin Diez J. Primary closure of laparotomies with high risk of incisional hernia using prosthetic material: analysis of usefulness. Hernia (2003) 7:134–6.10.1007/s10029-003-0124-212687426 El-Khadrawy OH Moussa G Mansour O Hashish MS. Prophylactic prosthetic reinforcement of midline abdominal incisions in high-risk patients. Hernia (2009) 13:267–74.10.1007/s10029-009-0484-319262985 Muysoms FE Antoniou SA Bury K Campanelli G Conze J Cuccurullo D European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia (2015) 19:1–24.10.1007/s10029-009-0484-325618025 Herbert GS Tausch TJ Carter PL. Prophylactic mesh to prevent incisional hernia: a note of caution. Am J Surg (2009) 197:595–8.10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.01.00219306984 Fortelny RH Hofman A May C Köckerling F BioMesh Study Group. Prevention of a parastomal hernia by biological mesh reinforcement. Front Surg (2015) 2:53.10.3389/fsurg.2015.0005326557646 Slim K Nini E Forestier D Kwiatkowski F Panis Y Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg (2003) 73:712–6.10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x12956787 Jadad AR Moore RA Carroll D Jenkinson C Reynolds DJ Gavaghan DJ Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials (1996) 17:1–12.10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-48721797 Boutros C Somasundar P Espat NJ. Early results on the use of biomaterials as adjuvant to abdominal wall closure following cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. World J Surg Oncol (2010) 8:72.10.1186/1477-7819-8-7220727181 Llaguna OH Avgerinos DV Nagda P Elfant D Leitman IM Goodman E. Does prophylactic biologic mesh placement protect against the development of incisional hernia in high-risk patients? World J Surg (2011) 35:1651–5.10.1007/s00268-011-1131-621547421 Bhangu A Futaba K Patel A Pinkney T Morton D. Reinforcement of closure of stoma site using a biological mesh. Tech Coloproctol (2014) 18:305–8.10.1007/s10151-013-1001-323549713 Maggiori L Moszkowicz D Zappa M Mongin C Panis Y. Bioprosthetic mesh reinforcement during temporary stoma closure decreases the rate of incisional hernia: a blinded, case-matched study in 94 patients with rectal cancer. Surgery (2015) 158:1651–7.10.1016/j.surg.2015.07.00426260286 Appendix Addendum 1

Search strategy used for a systematic literature review on prevention of incisional hernias with mesh. A computerized search was performed within 12 databases (Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Cochrane, Cinahl, Pubmed publisher, Lilacs, Scielo, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google scholar) on June 25th 2015.

 <uri xlink:href="http://Embase.com">Embase.com</uri> 839

('surgical mesh'/exp OR (mesh* OR 4DDOME OR AIGISRx OR AlloDerm OR AlloMax OR 'Bard Composix EX' OR 'BIO-A Tissue Reinforcement prosthesis' OR CollaMend OR DermaMatrix OR DualMesh OR 'Evolution P3EM' OR FasLata OR FlexHD OR FortaGen OR 'IntePro Lite' OR InteXen OR NEOVEIL OR 'Parietex composite' OR Pelvicol OR Pelvisoft OR Pelvitex OR PerFix OR 'Peri-Strips Dry' OR PeriGuard OR Permacol OR Physiomesh OR SeamGuard OR Strattice OR Surgisis OR 'TiLoop Bra' OR Timesh OR Tutomesh OR Tutopatch OR Ultrapro OR Ventralex OR Veritas OR Vivosorb OR Vypro OR X-Repair OR XenMatrix):ab,ti) AND (prevention/exp OR prevention:lnk OR (prevent* OR protect* OR prophyla*):ab,ti) AND ('incisional hernia'/exp OR 'abdominal wall hernia'/de OR 'abdominal wall defect'/de OR 'abdominal surgery'/de OR 'abdominal wall closure'/de OR laparotomy/exp OR 'abdominal wall'/de OR (((incision* OR cicatri* OR scar* OR ventral*) NEAR/3 (herni*)) OR ((abdominal* OR transabdominal*) NEAR/3 (surger* OR clos* OR defect* OR wall*)) OR laparotom* OR (midline NEAR/3 incision*)):ab,ti) NOT ([animals]/lim NOT [humans]/lim)

 Medline (ovid) 490

("surgical mesh"/OR (mesh* OR 4DDOME OR AIGISRx OR AlloDerm OR AlloMax OR "Bard Composix EX" OR "BIO-A Tissue Reinforcement prosthesis" OR CollaMend OR DermaMatrix OR DualMesh OR "Evolution P3EM" OR FasLata OR FlexHD OR FortaGen OR "IntePro Lite" OR InteXen OR NEOVEIL OR "Parietex composite" OR Pelvicol OR Pelvisoft OR Pelvitex OR PerFix OR "Peri-Strips Dry" OR PeriGuard OR Permacol OR Physiomesh OR SeamGuard OR Strattice OR Surgisis OR "TiLoop Bra" OR Timesh OR Tutomesh OR Tutopatch OR Ultrapro OR Ventralex OR Veritas OR Vivosorb OR Vypro OR X-Repair OR XenMatrix).ab,ti.) AND ("Primary Prevention"/OR "prevention and control".xs. OR (prevent* OR protect* OR prophyla*).ab,ti.) AND ("Hernia, Ventral"/OR "Hernia, Abdominal"/OR abdomen/su OR laparotomy/OR "abdominal wall"/OR (((incision* OR cicatri* OR scar* OR ventral*) ADJ3 (herni*)) OR ((abdominal* OR transabdominal*) ADJ3 (surger* OR clos* OR defect* OR wall*)) OR laparotom* OR (midline ADJ3 incision*)).ab,ti.) NOT (exp animals/NOT humans/)

 Cochrane 30

((mesh* OR 4DDOME OR AIGISRx OR AlloDerm OR AlloMax OR 'Bard Composix EX' OR 'BIO-A Tissue Reinforcement prosthesis' OR CollaMend OR DermaMatrix OR DualMesh OR 'Evolution P3EM' OR FasLata OR FlexHD OR FortaGen OR 'IntePro Lite' OR InteXen OR NEOVEIL OR 'Parietex composite' OR Pelvicol OR Pelvisoft OR Pelvitex OR PerFix OR 'Peri-Strips Dry' OR PeriGuard OR Permacol OR Physiomesh OR SeamGuard OR Strattice OR Surgisis OR 'TiLoop Bra' OR Timesh OR Tutomesh OR Tutopatch OR Ultrapro OR Ventralex OR Veritas OR Vivosorb OR Vypro OR X-Repair OR XenMatrix):ab,ti) AND ((prevent* OR protect* OR prophyla*):ab,ti) AND ((((incision* OR cicatri* OR scar* OR ventral*) NEAR/3 (herni*)) OR ((abdominal* OR transabdominal*) NEAR/3 (surger* OR clos* OR defect* OR wall*)) OR laparotom* OR (midline NEAR/3 incision*)):ab,ti)

 Web-of-science 474

TS = (((mesh* OR 4DDOME OR AIGISRx OR AlloDerm OR AlloMax OR "Bard Composix EX" OR "BIO-A Tissue Reinforcement prosthesis" OR CollaMend OR DermaMatrix OR DualMesh OR "Evolution P3EM" OR FasLata OR FlexHD OR FortaGen OR "IntePro Lite" OR InteXen OR NEOVEIL OR "Parietex composite" OR Pelvicol OR Pelvisoft OR Pelvitex OR PerFix OR "Peri-Strips Dry" OR PeriGuard OR Permacol OR Physiomesh OR SeamGuard OR Strattice OR Surgisis OR "TiLoop Bra" OR Timesh OR Tutomesh OR Tutopatch OR Ultrapro OR Ventralex OR Veritas OR Vivosorb OR Vypro OR X-Repair OR XenMatrix)) AND ((prevent* OR protect* OR prophyla*)) AND ((((incision* OR cicatri* OR scar* OR ventral*) NEAR/3 (herni*)) OR ((abdominal* OR transabdominal*) NEAR/3 (surger* OR clos* OR defect* OR wall*)) OR laparotom* OR (midline NEAR/3 incision*))) NOT ((animal* OR rat OR rats OR mouse OR mice OR murine OR rabbit* OR rodent* OR pig OR sus OR swine* OR porcine OR monkey* OR dog OR sheep OR ovine) NOT (human* OR patient*)))

 Scopus 697

TITLE-ABS-KEY(((mesh* OR 4DDOME OR AIGISRx OR AlloDerm OR AlloMax OR "Bard Composix EX" OR "BIO-A Tissue Reinforcement prosthesis" OR CollaMend OR DermaMatrix OR DualMesh OR "Evolution P3EM" OR FasLata OR FlexHD OR FortaGen OR "IntePro Lite" OR InteXen OR NEOVEIL OR "Parietex composite" OR Pelvicol OR Pelvisoft OR Pelvitex OR PerFix OR "Peri-Strips Dry" OR PeriGuard OR Permacol OR Physiomesh OR SeamGuard OR Strattice OR Surgisis OR "TiLoop Bra" OR Timesh OR Tutomesh OR Tutopatch OR Ultrapro OR Ventralex OR Veritas OR Vivosorb OR Vypro OR X-Repair OR XenMatrix)) AND ((prevent* OR protect* OR prophyla*)) AND ((((incision* OR cicatri* OR scar* OR ventral*) W/3 (herni*)) OR ((abdominal* OR transabdominal*) W/3 (surger* OR clos* OR defect* OR wall*)) OR laparotom* OR (midline W/3 incision*))) AND NOT ((animal* OR rat OR rats OR mouse OR mice OR murine OR rabbit* OR rodent* OR pig OR sus OR swine* OR porcine OR monkey* OR dog OR sheep OR ovine) AND NOT (human* OR patient*)))

 cinahl (ebsco) 23

(MH "surgical mesh + " OR (mesh* OR 4DDOME OR AIGISRx OR AlloDerm OR AlloMax OR "Bard Composix EX" OR "BIO-A Tissue Reinforcement prosthesis" OR CollaMend OR DermaMatrix OR DualMesh OR "Evolution P3EM" OR FasLata OR FlexHD OR FortaGen OR "IntePro Lite" OR InteXen OR NEOVEIL OR "Parietex composite" OR Pelvicol OR Pelvisoft OR Pelvitex OR PerFix OR "Peri-Strips Dry" OR PeriGuard OR Permacol OR Physiomesh OR SeamGuard OR Strattice OR Surgisis OR "TiLoop Bra" OR Timesh OR Tutomesh OR Tutopatch OR Ultrapro OR Ventralex OR Veritas OR Vivosorb OR Vypro OR X-Repair OR XenMatrix)) AND (MH "Preventive Health Care" OR MW prevention OR (prevent* OR protect* OR prophyla*)) AND (MH "Hernia, Abdominal" OR MH abdomen/su OR MH laparotomy OR (((incision* OR cicatri* OR scar* OR ventral*) N3 (herni*)) OR ((abdominal* OR transabdominal*) N3 (surger* OR clos* OR defect* OR wall*)) OR laparotom* OR (midline N3 incision*))) NOT (MH animals + NOT humans +)

 Pubmed publisher 14

("surgical mesh"[mh] OR (mesh*[tiab] OR 4DDOME OR AIGISRx OR AlloDerm OR AlloMax OR "Bard Composix EX" OR "BIO-A Tissue Reinforcement prosthesis" OR CollaMend OR DermaMatrix OR DualMesh OR "Evolution P3EM" OR FasLata OR FlexHD OR FortaGen OR "IntePro Lite" OR InteXen OR NEOVEIL OR "Parietex composite" OR Pelvicol OR Pelvisoft OR Pelvitex OR PerFix OR "Peri-Strips Dry" OR PeriGuard OR Permacol OR Physiomesh OR SeamGuard OR Strattice OR Surgisis OR "TiLoop Bra" OR Timesh OR Tutomesh OR Tutopatch OR Ultrapro OR Ventralex OR Veritas OR Vivosorb OR Vypro OR X-Repair OR XenMatrix)) AND ("Primary Prevention"[mh] OR "prevention and control"[sh] OR (prevent*[tiab] OR protect*[tiab] OR prophyla*[tiab])) AND ("Hernia, Ventral"[mh] OR "Hernia, Abdominal"[mh] OR abdomen/su[mh] OR laparotomy[mh] OR "abdominal wall"[mh] OR (((incision*[tiab] OR cicatri*[tiab] OR scar*[tiab] OR ventral*[tiab]) AND (herni*[tiab])) OR ((abdominal*[tiab] OR transabdominal*[tiab]) AND (surger*[tiab] OR clos*[tiab] OR defect*[tiab] OR wall*[tiab])) OR laparotom*[tiab] OR (midline AND incision*[tiab]))) NOT (animals[mh] NOT humans[mh]) AND publisher[sb]

 Google scholar

Mesh|meshes prevention|preventive|protective|protection|prophylactic|prophylaxis "incisioal|cicatrical|scar|ventral hernia"|"abdominal|transabdominal surgery|closure|defect|wall"|laparotomy|"midline incision" -animal -animals -rats -mice

 Lilacs 18 Scielo 8

(Mesh*) AND (prevent* OR protect* OR prophyla*) AND ("incisional hernia" OR "cicatrical hernia" OR "scar hernia" OR " ventral hernia" OR "abdominal hernia" OR "abdominal surgery" OR "abdominal closure" OR "abdominal defect" OR "abdominal wall" OR laparotom* OR "midline incision")

 ScienceDirect 92

(Mesh*) AND (prevent* OR protect* OR prophyla*) AND ("incisional hernia" OR "cicatrical hernia" OR "scar hernia" OR " ventral hernia" OR "abdominal hernia" OR "abdominal surgery" OR "abdominal closure" OR "abdominal defect" OR "abdominal wall" OR laparotom* OR "midline incision") AND TOPIC (incisional hernia)

 ProQuest 9

(ti(Mesh*) OR ab(Mesh*)) AND (ti(prevent* OR protect* OR prophyla*) OR ab(prevent* OR protect* OR prophyla*)) AND (ti("incisional hernia" OR "cicatrical hernia" OR "scar hernia" OR " ventral hernia" OR "abdominal hernia" OR "abdominal surgery" OR "abdominal closure" OR "abdominal defect" OR "abdominal wall" OR laparotom* OR "midline incision") OR ab("incisional hernia" OR "cicatrical hernia" OR "scar hernia" OR " ventral hernia" OR "abdominal hernia" OR "abdominal surgery" OR "abdominal closure" OR "abdominal defect" OR "abdominal wall" OR laparotom* OR "midline incision"))

1www.gradepro.org

2www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02208557

3www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02576184

4www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02238964 and www.controlled-trials.com ISRCTN46330337

5www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02226887

6www.prisma-statement.org