Washington, D.C. From the Departments of Plastic Surgery and General Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Nov;132(5):1295-1304. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a4c393.
BACKGROUND: Mesh implantation during abdominal wall reconstruction decreases rates of ventral hernia recurrence and has become the dominant method of repair. The authors provide a comprehensive comparison of surgical outcomes and complications by location of mesh placement following ventral hernia repair with onlay, interposition, retrorectus, or underlay mesh. METHODS: A systematic search of the English literature published from 1996 to 2012 in the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases was conducted to identify patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction using either prosthetic or biological mesh for ventral hernia repair. Demographic information was obtained from each study. RESULTS: Sixty-two relevant articles were included with 5824 patients treated with mesh repair of a ventral hernia between 1996 and 2012. Mesh position included onlay (19.6 percent), underlay (60.7 percent), interposition (6.4 percent), and retrorectus (12.4 percent). Prosthetic mesh was used in 80 percent of repairs and biological mesh in 20 percent. The weighted mean incidences of early events were as follows: wound complications, 19 percent; wound infections, 8 percent; seroma or hematoma formation, 11 percent; and reoperation, 10 percent. The weighted mean incidences of late complications included 8 percent for hernia recurrence and 2 percent for mesh explantation. Recurrence rates were highest for onlay (17 percent) or interposition (17 percent) reinforcement. The infection rate was also highest in the interposition cohort (25 percent). Seroma rates were lowest following a retrorectus repair (4 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Mesh reinforcement of a ventral hernia repair is safe and efficacious, but the location of the reinforcement appears to influence outcomes. Underlay or retrorectus mesh placement is associated with lower recurrence rates.
背景:在腹壁重建过程中植入网片可降低腹壁疝复发率,已成为修复的主要方法。作者通过对比腹疝修补术中使用的补片位置(包括前入路、中间入路、后入路或下入路),对手术结果和并发症进行了全面的比较。
方法:系统检索了 1996 年至 2012 年在 PubMed、MEDLINE 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库中发表的英文文献,以确定接受腹壁重建的患者,这些患者使用的是合成或生物补片进行腹疝修补。从每项研究中获取人口统计学信息。
结果:纳入了 62 篇相关文章,共有 5824 例患者在 1996 年至 2012 年间接受了腹疝修补术和网片治疗。补片位置包括前入路(19.6%)、下入路(60.7%)、中间入路(6.4%)和后入路(12.4%)。80%的修复使用合成补片,20%的修复使用生物补片。早期事件的加权平均发生率如下:伤口并发症 19%;伤口感染 8%;血清肿或血肿形成 11%;再次手术 10%。晚期并发症的加权平均发生率包括疝复发 8%和补片取出 2%。前入路或中间入路强化的复发率最高(分别为 17%和 17%)。中间入路组的感染率也最高(25%)。后入路修复的血清肿发生率最低(4%)。
结论:腹疝修补术中使用网片强化是安全有效的,但强化的位置似乎会影响结果。下入路或后入路的网片放置与较低的复发率相关。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008-7-16
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-9-13
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024-7-4
Dan Med J. 2017-3
Arch Plast Surg. 2025-3-11
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024-8-26
Br J Surg. 2023-11-9