Incisional Hernias Post Renal Transplant: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Hernia

Publisher Springer

Date 2023 Sep 15

PMID 37715026

Authors

B M Mac Curtain

W Qian

H C Temperley

A OMahony

Z Q Ng

B He

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Incisional hernia (IH) post renal transplant (RT) is relatively uncommon and can be challenging to manage clinically due to the presence of the kidney graft and patient immunosuppression. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesises the current literature in relation to IH rates, risk factors and outcomes post RT.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to July 2023. The most up to date Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines were followed. Pertinent clinical information was synthesised. A meta-analysis of the pooled proportions of IH rates, the rates of patients requiring surgical repair and the rates of recurrence post RT are reported.

Results: Twenty studies comprising 16,018 patients were included in this analysis. The pooled rate of IH occurrence post RT was 4% (CI 3-5%). The pooled rate of IH repair post RT was 61% (CI 14-100%). The pooled rate of IH recurrence after repair was 16% (CI 9-23%). Risk factors identified for IH development post RT are BMI, immunosuppression, age, smoking, incision type, reoperation, concurrent abdominal wall hernia, lymphocele formation and pulmonary disease.

Conclusions: IH post RT is uncommon and the majority of IH post RT are repaired surgically on an elective basis.

Citing Articles

Safety and outcome of elective synthetic mesh repair for incisional ventral hernias in immunosuppressed patients - a retrospective propensity-score-matched analysis.

Saidy R, Callister Y, Dittrich L, Eurich D, Denecke C, Pratschke J Hernia. 2025; 29(1):106.

PMID: 39992451 PMC: 11850561. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-025-03273-3.

References

Burger J, Luijendijk R, Hop W, Halm J, Verdaasdonk E, Jeekel J . Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(4):578-83. PMC: 1356459. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000141193.08524.e7. View

van Ramshorst G, Eker H, Hop W, Jeekel J, Lange J . Impact of incisional hernia on health-related quality of life and body image: a prospective cohort study. Am J Surg. 2012; 204(2):144-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.012. View

Borab Z, Shakir S, Lanni M, Tecce M, Macdonald J, Hope W . Does prophylactic mesh placement in elective, midline laparotomy reduce the incidence of incisional hernia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2017; 161(4):1149-1163. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.09.036. View

Fink C, Baumann P, Wente M, Knebel P, Bruckner T, Ulrich A . Incisional hernia rate 3 years after midline laparotomy. Br J Surg. 2013; 101(2):51-4. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9364. View

Mingoli A, Puggioni A, Sgarzini G, Luciani G, Corzani F, Ciccarone F . Incidence of incisional hernia following emergency abdominal surgery. Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1999; 31(6):449-53. View

Mahdavi R, Mehrabi M . Incisional hernia after renal transplantation and its repair with propylene mesh. Urol J. 2007; 1(4):259-62. View

Simson N, Parker S, Stonier T, Halligan S, Windsor A . Incisional Hernia in Renal Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review. Am Surg. 2018; 84(6):930-937. View

Ooms L, Verhelst J, Jeekel J, IJzermans J, Lange J, Terkivatan T . Incidence, risk factors, and treatment of incisional hernia after kidney transplantation: An analysis of 1,564 consecutive patients. Surgery. 2016; 159(5):1407-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.11.017. View

Smith C, Katz M, Foley D, Welch B, Leverson G, Funk L . Incidence and risk factors of incisional hernia formation following abdominal organ transplantation. Surg Endosc. 2014; 29(2):398-404. PMC: 4324562. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3682-8. View

10.

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 134:178-189. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001. View

11.

Tanaka K, Misawa T, Ashizuka S, Yoshizawa J, Akiba T, Ohki T . Risk Factors for Incisional Hernia in Children. World J Surg. 2017; 42(7):2265-2268. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-017-4434-4. View

12.

Pilch N, Bowman L, Taber D . Immunosuppression trends in solid organ transplantation: The future of individualization, monitoring, and management. Pharmacotherapy. 2020; 41(1):119-131. PMC: 8778961. DOI: 10.1002/phar.2481. View

13.

Brown D . A Review of the PubMed PICO Tool: Using Evidence-Based Practice in Health Education. Health Promot Pract. 2019; 21(4):496-498. DOI: 10.1177/1524839919893361. View

14.

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A . Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016; 5(1):210. PMC: 5139140. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. View

15.

Phillips S, Hill S, Lipscomb L, Africa J . Altering the Approach: Open Minimally Invasive Renal Transplant in Obese Patients Through the Anterior Rectus Sheath. Urology. 2017; 105:192-196. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.03.011. View

16.

Barker T, Migliavaca C, Stein C, Colpani V, Falavigna M, Aromataris E . Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021; 21(1):189. PMC: 8451728. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01381-z. View

17.

Nyaga V, Arbyn M, Aerts M . Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health. 2015; 72(1):39. PMC: 4373114. DOI: 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39. View

18.

Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327(7414):557-60. PMC: 192859. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. View

19.

Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H . A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2015; 1(2):97-111. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.12. View

20.

Hunter J, Saratzis A, Sutton A, Boucher R, Sayers R, Bown M . In meta-analyses of proportion studies, funnel plots were found to be an inaccurate method of assessing publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(8):897-903. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.003. View