A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal

Prophylactic Retrorectus Mesh Versus Small-Stitch Closure After Emergency Midline Laparotomy: 2-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial




AuthorsMäkäräinen, Elisa; Tolonen, Mari; Sallinen, Ville; Mentula, Panu; Leppäniemi, Ari; Ahonen, Matti; Saarnio, Juha; Pinta, Tarja; Lampela, Hanna; Malmi, Hanna; Lietzen, Elina; Nikki, Marko; Ohtonen, Pasi; Muysoms, Filip; Rautio, Tero

PublisherFrontiers Media SA

Publication year2025

Journal: Journal of Abdominal Wall Surgery

Article number15500

Volume4

eISSN2813-2092

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.3389/jaws.2025.15500

Publication's open availability at the time of reportingOpen Access

Publication channel's open availability Open Access publication channel

Web address https://doi.org/10.3389/jaws.2025.15500

Self-archived copy’s web addresshttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/506131667


Abstract

Introduction: 

Incisional hernias (IH) are common complications following emergency midline laparotomies. Mesh reinforcement has shown efficacy in preventing incisional hernias in elective surgeries, but evidence remains limited for emergency midline incisions. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of retrorectus placement of a self-gripping polyester mesh in preventing incisional hernia after emergency midline laparotomy, as measured by the incidence of IH, postoperative complications, quality of life, and health economic outcomes.

Methods: 

In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, adult patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy were randomized to receive either prophylactic retrorectus mesh or standard 4:1 small-stitch fascial closure using a slowly absorbable monofilament suture. The primary outcome was the radiological/clinical IH rate within 2 years after the surgery. Secondary outcomes were complications, reoperations, quality of life, and health-economic measures. Blinding was maintained for patients, outcome assessors, and radiologists. Due to difficulties in recruitment, the study was prematurely terminated prior to reaching the aimed number of patients.

Results: 

Out of 925 patients screened, 109 were randomized, and 72 received the allocated intervention. At 2-year’s follow-up, one (4%) asymptomatic incisional hernia was detected in the control group compared to none in mesh group. In the mesh group, three (9%) patients experienced mesh-related complications: one (5%) retrorectus hematoma, one (5%) internal hernia and one (5%) postoperative seroma. One (5%) additional patient in the mesh group developed a fistula requiring mesh removal. No significant differences were found in early postoperative complications or quality of life between groups.

Conclusion: 

Retrorectus mesh reinforcement did not reduce the incidence of incisional hernia compared to standard small-stitch closure in this trial. However, mesh-related complications were observed. Due to recruitment challenges and limited sample size, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn.


Downloadable publication

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Please cite the original version.




Funding information in the publication
The trial has received European Hernia Society Research Fund. The meshes and materials used within the study were funded by the hospital districts.


Last updated on 19/12/2025 02:54:56 PM