Background Prevention of incisional hernias with a prophylactic mesh in emergency surgery is controversial. The present study aimed to analyze the long-term results of prophylactic mesh used for preventing incisional hernia after emergency midline laparotomies. Methods This study was a registered (NCT04578561) retrospective analysis of patients who underwent an emergency midline laparotomy between January 2009 and July 2010 with a follow-up period of longer than 2 years. Long-term outcomes and risk factors for the development of incisional hernias between patients who received a prophylactic reinforcement mesh (Group M) and suture (Group S) were compared. Results From an initial 266 emergency midline laparotomies, 187 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 64.4 months (SD 35). Both groups had similar characteristics, except for a higher rate of previous operations (62 vs. 43.2%; P = 0.01) and operation due to a revision laparotomy (32.5 vs.13%; P = 0.02) in the M group. During follow-up, 29.9% of patients developed an incisional hernia (Group S 36.6% vs. Group M 14.3%; P = 0.002). Chronic mesh infections were diagnosed in 2 patients, but no mesh explants were needed, and no patient in the M group developed chronic pain. Long-term risk factors for incisional hernia were as follows: smoking (HR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.318–4.624; P = 0.05), contaminated surgery (HR = 2.98; 95% CI 1.142–7.8; P = 0.02), surgical site infection (SSI; HR = 3.83; 95% CI 1.86–7.86; P = 0.001), and no use of prophylactic mesh (HR = 5.09; 95% CI 2.1–12.2; P = 0.001). Conclusion Incidence of incisional hernias after emergency midline laparotomies is high and increases with time. High-risk patients, contaminated surgery, and surgical site infection (SSI) benefit from mesh reinforcement. Prophylactic mesh use is safe and feasible in emergencies with a low long-term complication rate. Trial registration: NCT04578561. www.clinicaltrials.gov

Cancer surgery has a significantly higher risk of IH (OR 1.25; p = 0.003) (14). Moreover, previous oncological surgery (13) (HR1.33; p < 0.001) and metastatic cancer (OR 0.77 p =

BackgroundPrevention of incisional hernias with a prophylactic mesh in emergency surgery is controversial. The present study aimed to analyze the long-term results of prophylactic mesh used for preventing incisional hernia after emergency midline laparotomies. MethodsThis study was a registered (NCT04578561) retrospective analysis of patients who underwent an emergency midline laparotomy between January 2009 and July 2010 with a follow-up period of longer than 2 years. Long-term outcomes and risk factors for the development of incisional hernias between patients who received a prophylactic reinforcement mesh (Group M) and suture (Group S) were compared. ResultsFrom an initial 266 emergency midline laparotomies, 187 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 64.4 months (SD 35). Both groups had similar characteristics, except for a higher rate of previous operations (62% vs. 43.2%; P=0.01) and operation due to a revision laparotomy (32.5% vs. 13%; P=0.02) in the M group. During follow-up, 29.9% of patients developed an incisional hernia (Group S 36.6% vs. Group M 14.3%; P=0.002). Chronic mesh infections were diagnosed in 2 patients, but no mesh explants were needed, and no patient in the M group developed chronic pain. Long-term risk factors for incisional hernia were as follows: smoking (HR=2.47; 95% CI 1.318–4.624; P=0.05), contaminated surgery (HR=2.98; 95% CI 1.142–7.8; P=0.02), surgical site infection (SSI; HR=3.83; 95% CI 1.86–7.86; P=0.001), and no use of prophylactic mesh (HR=5.09; 95% CI 2.1–12.2; P=0.001). ConclusionIncidence of incisional hernias after emergency midline laparotomies is high and increases with time. High-risk patients, contaminated surgery, and SSI benefit from mesh reinforcement. Prophylactic mesh use is safe and feasible in emergencies with a low long-term complication rate.