SynthesisWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2026
Role of prophylactic mesh in emergency midline laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsSeven 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).
conclusionProphylactic 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.