Dataset Information

Fascial Dehiscence and Incisional Hernia Prediction Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Fascial dehiscence (FD) and incisional hernia (IH) pose considerable risks to patients who undergo abdominal surgery, and many preventive strategies have been applied to reduce this risk. An accurate predictive model could aid identification of high-risk patients, who could be targeted for particular care. This study aims to systematically review existing FD and IH prediction models.

Methods

Prediction models were identified using pre-specified search terms on SCOPUS, PubMed, and Web of Science. Eligible studies included those conducted in adult patients who underwent any kind of abdominal surgery, and reported model performance. Data from the eligible studies were extracted, and the risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Pooling of C-statistics was performed using a random-effect meta-analysis. [Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021282463)].

Results

Twelve studies were eligible for review; five were FD prediction model studies. Most included studies had high RoB, especially in the analysis domain. The C-statistics of the FD and IH prediction models ranged from 0.69 to 0.92, but most have yet to be externally validated. Pooled C-statistics (95% CI) were 0.80 (0.74, 0.86) and 0.81 (0.75, 0.86) for the FD (external-validation) and IH prediction model, respectively. Some predictive factors such as body mass index, smoking, emergency operation, and surgical site infection were associated with FD or IH occurrence and were included in multiple models.

Conclusions

Several models have been developed as an aid for FD and IH prediction, mostly with modest performance and lacking independent validation. New models for specific patient groups may offer clinical utility.

SUBMITTER: Tansawet A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9636101 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Fascial Dehiscence and Incisional Hernia Prediction Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Tansawet Amarit A Numthavaj Pawin P Techapongsatorn Thawin T Techapongsatorn Suphakarn S Attia John J McKay Gareth G Thakkinstian Ammarin A

World journal of surgery 20220914 12

<h4>Background</h4>Fascial dehiscence (FD) and incisional hernia (IH) pose considerable risks to patients who undergo abdominal surgery, and many preventive strategies have been applied to reduce this risk. An accurate predictive model could aid identification of high-risk patients, who could be targeted for particular care. This study aims to systematically review existing FD and IH prediction models.<h4>Methods</h4>Prediction models were identified using pre-specified search terms on SCOPUS, P ...[more]

PMID: 36102959

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe incidence of incisional hernias (IHs) following midline abdominal incisions is difficult to estimate. Furthermore recent analyses have reported inconsistent findings on the superiority of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures.ObjectiveTo estimate the mean IH rate following midline laparotomy from the published literature, to identify variables that predict IH rates and to analyse whether the type of suture (absorbable versus non-absorbable) affects IH rates.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We sought randomised trials and observational studies including patients undergoing midline incisions with standard suture closure. Papers describing two or more arms suitable for inclusion had data abstracted independently for each arm.ResultsFifty-six papers, describing 83 separate groups comprising 14,618 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of IHs after midline incision was 12.8% (range: 0 to 35.6%) at a weighted mean of 23.7 months. The estimated risk of undergoing IH repair after midline laparotomy was 5.2%. Two meta-regression analyses (A and B) each identified seven characteristics associated with increased IH rate: one patient variable (higher age), two surgical variables (surgery for AAA and either surgery for obesity surgery (model A) or using an upper midline incision (model B)), two inclusion criteria (including patients with previous laparotomies and those with previous IHs), and two circumstantial variables (later year of publication and specifying an exact significance level). There was no significant difference in IH rate between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures either alone or in conjunction with either regression analysis.ConclusionsThe IH rate estimated by pooling the published literature is 12.8% after about two years. Seven factors account for the large variation in IH rates across groups. However there is no evidence that suture type has an intrinsic effect on IH rates.

Project description:PurposePregnancy-related critical illness leads to death for 3-14% of affected women. Although identifying patients at risk could facilitate preventive strategies, guide therapy, and help in clinical research, no prior systematic review of this literature exploring the validity of risk prediction models for maternal mortality exists. Therefore, we have systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed risk prediction models for maternal mortality.MethodsSearch strategy: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus, from inception to May 2017. Selection criteria: Trials or observational studies evaluating risk prediction models for maternal mortality. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data on prediction performance.ResultsThirty-eight studies that evaluated 12 different mortality prediction models were included. Mortality varied across the studies, with an average rate 10.4%, ranging from 0 to 41.7%. The Collaborative Integrated Pregnancy High-dependency Estimate of Risk (CIPHER) model and the Maternal Severity Index had the best performance, were developed and validated from studies of obstetric population with a low risk of bias. The CIPHER applies to critically ill obstetric patients (discrimination: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.823 (0.811-0.835), calibration: graphic plot [intercept-0.09, slope 0.92]). The Maternal Severity Index applies to hospitalized obstetric patients (discrimination: AUC 0.826 [0.802-0.851], calibration: standardized mortality ratio 1.02 [0.86-1.20]).ConclusionsDespite the high heterogeneity of the study populations and the limited number of studies validating the finally eligible prediction models, the CIPHER and the Maternal Severity Index are recommended for use among critically ill and hospitalized pregnant and postpartum women for risk adjustment in clinical research and quality improvement studies. Neither index has sufficient discrimination to be applicable for clinical decision making at the individual patient level.

Dataset Information

Fascial Dehiscence and Incisional Hernia Prediction Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Fascial Dehiscence and Incisional Hernia Prediction Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets