The impact of simultaneous panniculectomy in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ana Caroline Dias Rasador,Patricia Marcolin,Carlos André Balthazar da Silveira,João Pedro Gonçalves Kasakewitch,Raquel Nogueira,Sergio Mazzola Poli de Figueiredo,Diego Laurentino Lima,Flavio Malcher
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03149-y
IF: 2.92
2024-09-06
Hernia
Abstract:Background: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is often performed in patients with obesity. While panniculectomy improves cosmetic outcomes, it may increase complications, particularly wound-related adverse events. Despite its widespread use, the impact of concurrent panniculectomy on postoperative complications in VHR remains unclear. This study aimed to assess whether concurrent panniculectomy increases postoperative complications in VHR. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for studies published up to April 2024 comparing surgical outcomes in patients undergoing VHR with and without concurrent panniculectomy. We assessed recurrence, seroma, hematoma, surgical site infections (SSI), wound dehiscence, skin necrosis, chronic wound, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, duration of surgery, and deep venous thromboembolism (DVT). Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled for dichotomous and continuous endpoints, respectively. We used RStudio for statistics and heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Results: We screened 890 studies, fully reviewed 40, and included 11 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials, comprising 23,354 patients. Of these, 2,972 (13%) patients underwent VHR with concurrent panniculectomy (VHR-PAN). The mean age ranged from 37 to 59 years, and 73% of the sample were women. The mean BMI varied from 29 to 45 kg/m2, and 75% of the patients underwent mesh repair. The mean defect area ranged from 36 to 389 cm2. Most repairs were performed using mesh (75%) in an underlay position (68%) and 24% underwent component separation. VHR-PAN was associated with a decrease in recurrence rates (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89; p < 0.001; I2 = 1%) with a follow-up ranging from 1 to 36 months. Furthermore, subgroup analysis of recurrence in studies with a mean follow-up of at least one year also showed a reduction in recurrence (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88; p < 0.001; I2 = 12%), with a follow-up ranging from 12 to 36 months. Moreover, concurrent panniculectomy was associated with increased SSI (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.51; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), SSO (RR 1.49; 95% CI 1.26 to 1.77; p < 0.001; I2 = 11%), skin necrosis (RR 2.94; 95% CI 1.26 to 6.85; p = 0.012; I2 = 0%) and reoperation (RR 1.73; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.28; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and longer LOS (MD 0.90 day; 95%CI 0.40 to 1.40; p < 0.001; I2 = 56%). There was no significant difference in ocurrence of DVT, enterocutaneous fistula, hematoma, seroma, or wound dehiscence, neither on operative time or readmission rates. Conclusion: VHR-PAN is associated with lower recurrence rates. However, it increases the risk of wound morbidity and reoperation and prolongs hospital stay. Surgeons should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of performing VHR-PAN. Study registration: A review protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024542721).