Role of prophylactic mesh in emergency midline laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: The role of prophylactic mesh reinforcement in emergency laparotomy closure remains controversial. While prophylactic mesh may reduce incisional hernia, its use in unstable and contaminated settings raises concerns regarding operative time, seroma development, and wound complications. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the safety and efficacy of prophylactic mesh versus primary suture closure in emergency midline laparotomy. METHODS: A systematic search was performed for RCTs comparing prophylactic mesh with suture closure in adult patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy. Primary outcomes were overall wound complications (OWC) and incisional hernia (IH). Secondary outcomes included superficial and deep surgical site infection, wound dehiscence (WD), seroma, hematoma, operative time, postoperative pain, quality of life, hospital and ICU stay, transfusion, and mortality. RESULTS: Seven RCTs comprising 643 patients were included. Mesh reinforcement reduced incisional hernia incidence, with significant reductions at 1 month (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12-0.68), 6 months (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01-0.86), 12 months (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.49), and 24 months (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15-0.49). Mesh increased seroma risk (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.38-4.35) and, was associated with higher overall wound complications (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.04-2.18). No significant differences were found in SSI, wound dehiscence, hematoma, transfusion, ICU or hospital stay, pain, quality of life, or mortality. Operative time was longer with mesh (MD 26 min, 95% CI 15.9-36.9). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh in emergency laparotomy closure poses a clinical dilemma: it lowers the risk of incisional hernia but prolongs surgery and increases seroma and wound complications. Current evidence underscores the trade-off between long-term prevention and short-term morbidity. Larger, protocol-driven trials with long-term follow-up are needed to determine in which patients and wound classes mesh reinforcement is justified.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
World Journal of Emergency Surgery
Published
2026-04-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-026-00697-9
Primary Topic
Hernia repair and management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Role of prophylactic mesh in emergency midline laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Richard Peter ten Broek, Edward Tan, Mohamed Gamal Mohamed, Mahmoud Diaa Hindawi et al.
World Journal of Emergency Surgery
Hernia repair and management
article

Role of prophylactic mesh in emergency midline laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Richard Peter ten Broek, Edward Tan, Mohamed Gamal Mohamed, Mahmoud Diaa Hindawi, Ezzeldin Ahmed Abdelaty, Andrew W. Kirkpatrick, Waleed Abdelrhman Kotb, Abdel-Fattah Kalmoush, Abdulrahman Faisal Ziada, Hamdi Elbelkasi, Mohamed Mostafa Eisa
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: The role of prophylactic mesh reinforcement in emergency laparotomy closure remains controversial. While prophylactic mesh may reduce incisional hernia, its use in unstable and contaminated settings raises concerns regarding operative time, seroma development, and wound complications. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the safety and efficacy of prophylactic mesh versus primary suture closure in emergency midline laparotomy. METHODS: A systematic search was performed for RCTs comparing prophylactic mesh with suture closure in adult patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy. Primary outcomes were overall wound complications (OWC) and incisional hernia (IH). Secondary outcomes included superficial and deep surgical site infection, wound dehiscence (WD), seroma, hematoma, operative time, postoperative pain, quality of life, hospital and ICU stay, transfusion, and mortality. RESULTS: Seven RCTs comprising 643 patients were included. Mesh reinforcement reduced incisional hernia incidence, with significant reductions at 1 month (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12-0.68), 6 months (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01-0.86), 12 months (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.49), and 24 months (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15-0.49). Mesh increased seroma risk (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.38-4.35) and, was associated with higher overall wound complications (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.04-2.18). No significant differences were found in SSI, wound dehiscence, hematoma, transfusion, ICU or hospital stay, pain, quality of life, or mortality. Operative time was longer with mesh (MD 26 min, 95% CI 15.9-36.9). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh in emergency laparotomy closure poses a clinical dilemma: it lowers the risk of incisional hernia but prolongs surgery and increases seroma and wound complications. Current evidence underscores the trade-off between long-term prevention and short-term morbidity. Larger, protocol-driven trials with long-term follow-up are needed to determine in which patients and wound classes mesh reinforcement is justified.

World Journal of Emergency SurgeryVol. 21(1)
Kafrelsheikh University (EG), Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), Al-Azhar University (EG), Tanta University (EG), Foothills Medical Centre (CA), Radboud University Medical Center (NL), Desert Research Center (EG), Assiut University (EG)
Al-Azhar University
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Hernia repair and management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.