Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 6, 2025

Application of a New Mesh Fixation Method in Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia Repair
Published on: December 23, 2022
Prophylactic mesh placement in emergency midline laparotomy for intestinal perforation peritonitis: An appeal for
Vivek Vijay Kumar1, Amrendra Verma1, Dileep Singh Thakur1
1Department of Surgery, 534313NSCB Government Medical College, Jabalpur, India.
Abstract:
Prophylactic mesh placement (PMP) is increasingly being used to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia after routine and emergency midline laparotomy (EML). However, such studies are not available for EMLs done solely for intestinal perforation. Patients who underwent non-absorbable PMP during EML for intestinal perforation (Group A, 15 patients) were compared with those who had a conventional abdominal wall closure (Group B, 20 patients). The incidence of wound dehiscence was significantly higher in Group A, while surgical site infection (SSI), and incisional hernia were similar in both groups. Mesh explantation was needed in half the cases. A prophylactically placed non-absorbable mesh in patients undergoing EML for intestinal perforation is associated with significantly higher rates of wound dehiscence and of mesh explantation and therefore, routine use of such a mesh appears not to be justified.
Insights
Prophylactic mesh placement during emergency midline laparotomy for intestinal perforation increases wound dehiscence and mesh explantation. Routine use of prophylactic mesh in these cases is not recommended due to adverse outcomes.
Area of Science:
- Abdominal Surgery
- Surgical Materials
- Hernia Repair
Background:
- Incisional hernia prevention often involves prophylactic mesh placement after laparotomy.
- Limited data exists on prophylactic mesh placement specifically for emergency midline laparotomy (EML) due to intestinal perforation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic mesh placement (PMP) in patients undergoing EML for intestinal perforation.
Main Methods:
- A comparative study involving 15 patients with non-absorbable PMP (Group A) and 20 patients with conventional closure (Group B) during EML for intestinal perforation.
- Outcomes assessed included wound dehiscence, surgical site infection (SSI), and incisional hernia rates.
Main Results:
- Group A showed a significantly higher incidence of wound dehiscence compared to Group B.
- Surgical site infection and incisional hernia rates were similar between the two groups.
- Half of the patients in Group A required mesh explantation.
Conclusions:
- Prophylactic non-absorbable mesh placement during EML for intestinal perforation is associated with increased wound dehiscence and mesh explantation rates.
- The routine use of prophylactic mesh in this specific patient population is not justified based on current findings.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Esophageal Perforation-II: Clinical Manifestations and Management
Clinical Manifestations:
Esophageal Perforation-I: Introduction
The location of esophageal perforation can vary, occurring anywhere along the esophagus....
Inflammatory Bowel Disease V: Surgical Management
Here are some common surgical interventions for IBD:

