Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Study Centre of the German Surgical Society, and Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ann Surg. 2010 May;251(5):843-56. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d973e4.
To evaluate the optimal technique and material for abdominal fascia closure after midline laparotomy, first by means of a precisely defined study population and follow-up period and second by the surgically driven aspects.
Overview of existing systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials in elective and emergency populations comparing suture techniques (continuous vs. interrupted) and materials (rapidly vs. slowly vs. nonabsorbable). Random effects conventional and cumulative meta-analyses were calculated and presented as odds ratios and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals.
Five systematic reviews and 14 trials including 7711 patients (6752 midline incisions) were analyzed. None of the systematic reviews differentiated elective versus emergency laparotomy. The analysis of available primary studies revealed significant lower hernia rates using a continuous (vs. interrupted) technique (OR: 0.59; P=0.001) with slowly absorbable (vs. rapid-absorbable) suture material (OR: 0.65; P=0.009) in the elective setting, which was in contrast to the conflicting results of existing systematic reviews. No statistical heterogeneity was detected in the elective setting (I=0%). Seven studies incorporating elective and emergency procedures revealed inconclusive and heterogeneous results (I=45%-85%). No studies have evaluated closure methods solely in the emergency setting so far.
No further trials should be conducted for evaluation of technique and available materials for elective midline abdominal fascial closure, according to the results of our cumulative meta-analysis. Future trials will have to define the optimal closure strategy in the emergency setting and relevance of new suture materials and other strategies such as the use of prophylactic mesh in targeted subpopulations.
通过精确定义的研究人群和随访期,首先评估经腹正中切开术后腹部筋膜关闭的最佳技术和材料,其次通过手术驱动因素进行评估。
对现有系统评价和随机对照试验的荟萃分析进行概述。通过系统检索(Medline、Embase 和 The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials),确定了比较缝合技术(连续与间断)和材料(快速与缓慢与不可吸收)的择期和急诊人群的随机对照试验。计算并呈现随机效应常规和累积荟萃分析的比值比和相应的 95%置信区间。
共分析了 5 项系统评价和 14 项试验,共纳入 7711 例患者(6752 例正中切口)。没有一项系统评价对择期与急诊手术进行了区分。对现有主要研究的分析显示,在择期手术中,连续(与间断)技术(OR:0.59;P=0.001)和缓慢吸收(与快速吸收)缝线材料(OR:0.65;P=0.009)显著降低疝发生率,这与现有系统评价的矛盾结果相反。在择期手术中未检测到统计学异质性(I=0%)。7 项纳入择期和急诊手术的研究得出了不一致和异质性的结果(I=45%-85%)。迄今为止,尚无研究评估仅在急诊情况下的闭合方法。
根据我们的累积荟萃分析结果,不应再进行评估择期正中腹部筋膜关闭的技术和现有材料的试验。未来的试验将不得不确定在急诊情况下的最佳闭合策略,以及新缝线材料和其他策略(如在特定亚人群中预防性使用网片)的相关性。