Sutureless onlay hernia repair: a review of 97 patients

Is it safe not to fix the mesh in an open incisional hernia repair? Literature review

INTRODUCTION

Review the articles with incisional hernia repair without mesh fixation in open hernia repair.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature published from 01/01/2008 to 31/12/2023 was performed using Medline PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. The search used the keywords: incisional hernia, open mesh repair, and without mesh fixation.

RESULTS

Nine publications were identified for the present analysis. The quality of each study was assessed. Information about operative methods, main results, conclusions, and recommendations was collected.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results and findings of reviewed articles, postoperative abdominal wall hernia repair without mesh suturing is safe and can improve postoperative results. Still, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether it is associated with better outcomes than hernia repair with mesh fixation. Further clinical studies are needed to clarify whether this method is clinically essential.

A Biomechanical Analysis of Prophylactic Mesh Reinforced Porcine Laparotomy Incisions

INTRODUCTION

Research indicates that prophylactic mesh may help prevent incisional hernia after laparotomy, but best practice patterns in these situations are still evolving. Here, we compare the failure loads (FLs) and biomechanical stiffness (BMS) of 35 porcine abdominal wall laparotomy incisions reinforced with meshes of various widths and fixation distances using biomechanical testing.

METHODS

In each specimen, a 10-cm incision was made and closed using continuous 1-0 Maxon suture. Specimens were randomized to mesh width (none, 2.5 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm, 6 cm, 8 cm) and tack separation (1.5 cm, 2 cm apart) and the meshes secured in an onlay fashion. Cyclic loads oscillating from 15 N to 140 N were applied to simulate abdominal wall stress, and the specimens subsequently loaded to failure. FLs (N) and BMS (N/mm) were comparatively analyzed.

RESULTS

All specimens failed via suture pull-through. FLs and BMS were lowest in specimens with suture-only (421.43 N; 11.69 N/mm). FLs and BMS were significantly higher in 4-cm mesh specimens (567.51 N) than those with suture, 2.5-cm, and 3.0-cm mesh (all P < 0.05). FLs in specimens with a greater number of tacks were consistently higher in meshes of similar sizes, although these did not reach significance.

CONCLUSIONS

A 4-cm mesh reenforcement was superior to suture-only and smaller meshes at preserving strength in laparotomy closure in a porcine model but larger meshes (6 cm, 8 cm) did not provide an additional benefit. Meshes with more fixation points may be advantageous, but additional data are needed to make definitive conclusions.

Report of novel application of T-line hernia mesh in ventral hernia repair

Introduction

Ventral hernia repair is one of the most common surgeries performed in the United States. Failure of hernia repairs can be attributed to sutures pulling through tissue or mesh (anchor point failure). T-Line Hernia Mesh is the first mesh designed to specifically prevent anchor point failure by distributing tension. This case study of two patients is the first clinical application of the novel T-Line Hernia Mesh.

Presentation of case

Two separate patients presented with symptomatic ventral hernia secondary to previous laparotomy. Patient 1 is a fifty-five year-old male who underwent open ventral hernia repair with T-Line Hernia Mesh onlay placement. Patient 2 is a fifty-eight year-old female with a symptomatic ventral hernia that underwent bilateral component separation and primary hernia repair with T-Line Hernia Mesh. Both patients postoperative course was uneventful with no reported surgical site occurrences or hernia recurrence.

Discussion

T-Line Hernia Mesh provides a new innovative approach to hernia surgery. This provides the first clinical outcomes. No complications were observed. In addition, this manuscript also demonstrates the surgical technique for the first time.

Conclusion

This cases and technical description provides the initial report for a new designed T-Line Hernia Mesh that could result in a paradigm shift in hernia surgery concepts.

•

T-Line Hernia Mesh® is an innovative unique design with mesh extensions that provide 15x the surface area and 275% stronger repair to overcome hernia recurrence.

•

This is the first clinical study that demonstrates open ventral hernia repair with the T-Line Hernia Mesh with onlay repair. No surgical site occurrences were observed.

•

T-Line Hernia Mesh design and clinical outcomes advance may advance current paradigms in hernia repair surgery mesh fixation and tools

Strategies for Mesh Fixation in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: Concepts and Techniques

SUMMARY

Ventral hernias have numerous causes, ranging from sequelae of surgical procedures to congenital deformities. Patients suffering from these hernias experience a reduced quality of life through pain, associated complications, and physical disfigurement. Therefore, it is important to provide these patients with a steadfast repair that restores functionality and native anatomy. To do this, techniques and materials for abdominal wall reconstruction have advanced throughout the decades, leading to durable surgical repairs. At the cornerstone of this lies the use of mesh. When providing abdominal wall reconstruction, a surgeon must make many decisions with regard to mesh use. Along with the type of mesh and plane of placement of mesh, a surgeon must decide on the method of mesh fixation. Fixation of mesh provides an equal distribution of tension and a more robust tissue-mesh interface, which promotes integration. There exist numerous modalities for mesh fixation, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. This Special Topic article aims to compare and contrast methods of mesh fixation in terms of strength of fixation, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Methods included in this review are suture, tack, fibrin glue, mesh strip, and self-adhering modes of fixation.

Onlay Poly-4-Hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) Mesh for Complex Hernia: Early Clinical and Patient Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

While mesh re-enforcement and advanced surgical techniques are cornerstones of complex ventral hernia repair (CVHR), the risk of complications and recurrence is common. We aim to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and patient reported outcomes (PROs) of patients undergoing CVHR with onlay Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB).

METHODS

Adult (>18 y old) patients undergoing VHR with P4HB (Phasix) in the onlay plane by a single surgeon from 01/2015 to 05/2020 were reviewed. VHR was considered complex if patients had significant co-morbidities, large abdominal wall defects, a history of extensive abdominal surgery, and/or concurrent intra-abdominal pathology. A composite of postoperative outcomes including surgical site occurrences (SSO), surgical site infection (SSI), and surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSOpi), as well as PROs as defined by the Abdominal Hernia-Q (AHQ), were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients were included with average age and body mass index of 56.4 and 29.9 kg/m². Median follow up was 20 mo with a hernia recurrence rate of 5.9% (n = 3). 21 patients had an SSO (41.2%), 8 had an SSI (15.7%), and 6 had an SSOpi (11.8%). There was an association with Ventral Hernia Working Group ≥ 2 and development of SSO. There was a significant improvement in overall PROs (P < 0.0001) with no difference in those patients with and without complications (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For hernia patients with large defects and complex intra-abdominal pathology, a safe and effective repair is difficult. The use of onlay P4HB was associated with acceptable postoperative outcomes and recurrence rate.

Dual Tack Mesh Fixation System on a Cadaveric Porcine Model-Creation of a Mesh Fixation System for Hernia Treatment and Prevention

BACKGROUND

Onlay mesh repair (OMR) has proven to be a widely used, simple, and effective technique for treatment and prevention of hernia occurrence. Despite established benefits, there is still a lack of widespread adoption. In this study, we present the Dual Tacker Device (DTD), an enabling technology that directly addresses the limitations to the adoption of OMR, saving surgical time and effort and making OMR more reproducible across a wide range of patients.

METHODS

The DTD mesh fixation system is a semiautomated, hand-held, disposable, multipoint onlay mechanical mesh fixation system that is able to rapidly and uniformly tension and fixate mesh for both hernia treatment and prevention. A cadaveric porcine model was used as a pilot test conducted during a 2 day session to assess the usability of the device and to show that the DTD provided equivalent or superior biomechanical support compared with the standard of care (hand-sewn, OptiFix).

RESULTS

Our study included 37 cadaveric porcine incisional closure abdominal wall models. These were divided into four groups: DTD-mediated OMR (n = 14), hand-sewn OMR (n = 7), OptiFix OMR (n = 9), and suture-only repair (no mesh) (n = 7). Eight surgical residents performed device-mediated and hand-sewn OMR. Average time to completion was fastest in the DTD cohort (45.6s) with a statistically significant difference compared with the hand-sewn cohort (343.1s, P < 0.01). No difference in tensile strength was noted between DTD (195.32N), hand-sewn (200.48N), and OptiFix (163.23N). Discreet hand movements were smallest in the DTD (29N) and significant (P < 0.01) when compared with hand-sewn (202N) and OptiFix (35N).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the DTD is not only feasible, but demonstrated improvement in time to completion and economy of movement over current standard of care. While more testing is needed and planned, compared with conventional approaches, the DTD represents a robust proof of principle with promising implications for clinical feasibility and adoptability.

The 4 Principles of Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Abdominal wall defects are some of the most common and challenging problems encountered by plastic surgeons. A high proportion of patients with abdominal wall defects have significant comorbidities and/or contamination, putting them at high risk for complications. In addition to advanced surgical skills and precise anatomical knowledge, the plastic surgeon needs strict discipline and medical acumen, to optimize patients before and after surgery. In this paper, we discuss the goals of abdominal wall reconstruction, and the 4 steps to successful surgery: preoperative patient selection/optimization, durable and dynamic reconstruction of the musculofascial layer, careful attention to the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and meticulous postoperative management.

Biomechanical Comparison of Fibrin Sealants for Mesh Fixation

Adhesive use for fixation in hernia repair allows for complete and immediate mesh surface area adherence. Little is known about the fixation strengths of the products and application methods available. The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate and early strength of fixation of Tisseel™ and Evicel™ using hand and spray application techniques. Sixteen Mongrel swine underwent implantation of large-pore, mid-weight polypropylene mesh fixated with either Tisseel™ or Evicel™, applied by hand or with a spray apparatus. Time points studied were zero and four days. All samples underwent lap shear testing to quantify the strength of the mesh–tissue interface as an indicator of mesh fixation strength. Thirty Day 4 and 16 Day 0 samples were tested. Manually applied Tisseel™ mean fixation strength was 2.05 N/cm at Day 0 and 6.02 N/cm at Day 4. Sprayed Tisseel™ had mean fixation strength of 1.22 N/cm at Day 0 and 7.21 N/cm at Day 4. Manually applied Evicel™ showed mean fixation strength of 0.92 N/cm at Day 0 and 6.73 N/cm at Day 4. Mean fixation strength of sprayed Evicel™ was 0.72 N/cm at Day 0 and 6.70 N/cm at Day 4. Analysis of variance showed no difference between groups at Day 0 or Day 4. Immediate strength of mesh fixation could have significant implications for early recurrence and mesh contraction. This study demonstrates that no difference exists in immediate or early fixation strength between these two brands of sealants or their method of application.

Biomechanical and Histologic Evaluation of LifeMesh™: A Novel Self-Fixating Mesh Adhesive

Mesh fixation with the use of adhesives results in an immediate and total surface area adhesion of the mesh, removing the need for penetrating fixation points. The purpose of this study was to evaluate LifeMesh™, a prototype mesh adhesive technology which coats polypropylene mesh. The strength of the interface between mesh and tissue, inflammatory responses, and histology were measured at varying time points in a swine model, and these results were compared with sutures. Twenty Mongrel swine underwent implantation of LifeMesh™ and one piece of bare polypropylene mesh secured with suture (control). One additional piece of either LifeMesh™ or control was used for histopathologic evaluation. The implants were retrieved at 3, 7, and 14 days. Only 3- and 7-day specimens underwent lap shear testing. On Day 3, LifeMesh™ samples showed considerably less contraction than sutured samples. The interfacial strength of Day 3 LifeMesh™ samples was similar to that of sutured samples. At seven days, LifeMesh™ samples continued to show significantly less contraction than sutured samples. The strength of fixation at seven days was greater in the control samples. The histologic findings were similar in LifeMesh™ and control samples. LifeMesh™ showed significantly less contraction than sutured samples at all measured time points. Although fixation strength was similar at three days, the interfacial strength of LifeMesh™ remained unchanged, whereas sutured controls increased by day 7. With histologic equivalence, considerably less contraction, and similar early fixation strength, LifeMesh™ is a viable mesh fixation technology.

Onlay with Adhesive Use Compared with Sublay Mesh Placement in Ventral Hernia Repair: Was Chevrel Right? An Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative Analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of mesh during ventral hernia repair (VHR) is a well-accepted concept. However, the ideal location of mesh placement remains strongly debated. Although VHR with onlay mesh placement has historically been associated with a high rate of wound events, this surgical approach is technically less challenging than VHR with sublay mesh placement. The purpose of this study was to compare 30-day wound events after onlay mesh placement with adhesive fixation vs those after sublay mesh placement using the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative database.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients undergoing elective, open VHR with synthetic mesh placement from January 2013 through January 2016 were identified within the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative. Only patients with clean wounds were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups: onlay mesh placement with the use of adhesive and sublay mesh placement. The association of mesh location with 30-day wound events was investigated using a matched analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,854 patients met inclusion criteria; 1,761 (95.0%) underwent sublay mesh placement and 93 (5.0%) underwent onlay mesh placement with the use of adhesive. A 2:1 sublay to onlay matched analysis was performed based on factors previously shown to influence wound events after VHR. After matching, both groups had a lower mean Ventral Hernia Working Group grade and fewer associated comorbidities. There was no statistically significant difference between the sublay and onlay groups with respect to 30-day surgical site infections (2.9% vs 5.5%; p = 0.30), surgical site occurrences (15.2% vs 7.7%; p = 0.08), or surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (8.2% vs 5.5%; p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Ventral hernia repair with onlay mesh placement is a safe alternative to VHR with sublay mesh placement in low-risk patients. Additional studies are needed to determine the long-term mesh outcomes and recurrence rates in both of these groups.