Retrospective cohort study evaluates the effectiveness of mesh reinforcement in preventing abdominal bulge in high-risk populations, suggesting selective use improves outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Previous work has demonstrated mixed evidence on prophylactic mesh reinforcement to prevent abdominal laxity. Our study created a clinical decision tool to identify who may benefit from mesh reinforcement compared to an active prophylactic control. After risk-stratifying vulnerable populations, we hypothesized that high risk populations would most benefit from mesh placement. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 100 consecutive abdominal free flaps at our institution (33 retrorectus P4HB mesh, 67 plication ± onlay mesh). We created a CT-dervied Abdominal Wall Vulnerability Index (AWVI) that incorporated into known preoperative risk factors to stratify patients into risk tertiles. Primary endpoint was clinical diagnosis of bulge collected in a time-to-event fashion. Treatment effect was assessed using a multivariate Cox regression, with propensity-weighted modeling and Firth-penalized regression as sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Abdominal bulge occurred in 37.3% of patients in the plication patients, and 6.1% in the retrorectus mesh group (p<0.001). Retrorectus reinforcement reduced bulge risk in Cox modeling (HR≈0.19, p<0.04) and sensitivity analyses (OR≈0.09, p<0.01). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated early and persistent bulge-free survival beyond two years. Prospective application of risk stratification system demonstrated a 36.4% ARR with mesh placement in moderate laxity groups, and a 47.7% ARR in high laxity groups. Addition of intraoperative stressors—lateral perforator use, multiple perforators, technique (ms-TRAM vs. DIEP) further informed selection. CONCLUSIONS: Retrorectus P4HB reinforcement substantially reduces bulge compared with active prophylaxis and shows durable benefit. The proposed vulnerability framework within this study supports selective reinforcement in patients at highest predicted risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lynch et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: