Two-year patient-related outcome measures (PROM) of primary ventral and incisional hernia repair using a novel three-dimensional composite polyester monofilament mesh: the SymCHro registry study

Wound healing and hernia after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair - Onlay self-gripping polyester mesh reinforcement compared with small bite sutured closure

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic mesh implantation following open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm is a debatable subject.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of a self-gripping polyester mesh used in on-lay technique to prevent incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 495 patients who underwent aortic surgery between May 2017 and May 2021. Patients included in the study underwent open surgical repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with closure of the abdominal wall with either small bite suture technique or prophylactic mesh reinforcement. Primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of incisional hernia during a two-year follow-up period. Secondary endpoints were mesh-related complications.

RESULTS

Mesh implantation with the on-lay technique was successful in all cases. No patient in the mesh group developed an incisional hernia during the 24-month follow-up period. Two patients in the non-mesh group developed a symptomatic incisional hernia during the follow-up period at 6 months. Three cases of post-operative access site complications were observed in the mesh group.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of a self-gripping polyester mesh using the on-lay technique demonstrates acceptable early-durability after open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. However, it appears to be associated with a number of post-operative access site complications.

Open IPOMs for medium/large incisional ventral hernia repairs in the French Hernia Registry: factors associated with their use and mesh-related outcomes

PURPOSE

The use of open intra-peritoneal onlay mesh repairs (O-IPOMs) for treating medium/large incisional ventral hernias has come into question due to the development of minimally invasive and sublay procedures. This study aimed to identify factors that are associated with the use of O-IPOMs in France.

METHODS

We analysed prospectively collected data from the French Hernia Registry on incisional ventral hernia repairs (IVHR) for hernias ≥ 4 cm in width.

RESULTS

We obtained data for 2261 IVHR (from 11/09/2011 to 30/03/2020): 733 O-IPOMs and 1,528 other techniques. We found that the O-IPOMs were performed on patients with more patient-related risk factors compared with the other techniques. Specifically, there was a higher proportion of patients with ASA III/IV (40.47% vs. 28.02%; p < 0.00001) and at least one patient-related risk factor (66.17% vs. 58.51%; p = 0.0005). Of the 733 O-IPOMs, 195 used Ventrio ST™ (VST), the most commonly used mesh for such IPOMs in our database; the other 538 O-IPOMs used other meshes (OM). The VST subgroup had a higher proportion of patients with ASA III/IV (52.58% vs. 36.07%; p < 0.0001) and on anticoagulants (26.04% vs. 18.41%; p = 0.0229) compared with the OM subgroup; they also had a lower recurrence rate after 2 years (5.83% vs. 15.41%; p = 0.008). However, large (≥ 10 cm) or lateral defects were more common in the OM subgroup, and their mesh/defect area ratio was lower.

CONCLUSION

O-IPOMs were performed on patients with more comorbidities and/or complex incisional hernias compared with other techniques.

A Prospective, Single Arm, Multi-Center Study Evaluating the Clinical Outcomes of Ventral Hernias Treated with OviTex® 1S Permanent Reinforced Tissue Matrix: The BRAVO Study 12-Month Analysis

BACKGROUND

Conflicting results from previous studies have led to dissent over whether surgical mesh is safe and effective in ventral hernia repair. A newer class of mesh known as a reinforced tissue matrix, combining a biologic scaffold and minimal polymer reinforcement, offers promise in reducing inflammatory response and increasing abdominal wall support. This study sought to assess the clinical utility of a reinforced tissue matrix (OviTex) in ventral hernia repair 12 months after implantation.

METHODS

This is a prospective, single-arm, multi-center study to evaluate the clinical performance of OviTex^® 1S Permanent (OviTex) in the repair of primary or recurrent ventral hernias (VH) in consecutive patients (ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT03074474). The rate of surgical site occurrences (SSOs) was evaluated 90 days post-surgery as the primary endpoint. Hernia recurrence and the incidence of postoperative events were evaluated between three and 12 months as secondary endpoints. The incidence of other complications and patient-reported outcomes were also recorded.

RESULTS

Ninety-two (92) patients were enrolled in the study, of whom seventy-six (76) reached the 12-month follow-up. All patients were at least 18 years of age with a BMI of <40 kg/m². Hernia defects were <20 × 20 cm, classified as class I-III according to the CDC wound classification system. Of the 76 patients who reached 12-month follow-up, twenty-six (34%) had previous VH repairs and thirteen (17%) had previous surgical infection. Sixty (79%) had factors known to increase the risk of recurrence. Twenty patients (26%) experienced SSOs, with ten (13%) requiring procedural intervention. Two of the 75 patients (2.7%) experienced a recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The low rate of hernia recurrence and SSOs requiring intervention illustrates the potential that reinforced tissue matrices, and OviTex 1S, in particular, have to improve outcomes in VH repairs. Follow-up to 24 months is ongoing.

A systematic review of outcome reporting in incisional hernia surgery

Background

The incidence of incisional hernia is up to 20 per cent after abdominal surgery. The management of patients with incisional hernia can be complex with an array of techniques and meshes available. Ensuring consistency in reporting outcomes across studies on incisional hernia is important and will enable appropriate interpretation, comparison and data synthesis across a range of clinical and operative treatment strategies.

Methods

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE (from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2019) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All studies documenting clinical and patient-reported outcomes for incisional hernia were included.

Results

In total, 1340 studies were screened, of which 92 were included, reporting outcomes on 12 292 patients undergoing incisional hernia repair. Eight broad-based outcome domains were identified, including patient and clinical demographics, hernia-related symptoms, hernia morphology, recurrent incisional hernia, operative variables, postoperative variables, follow-up and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical outcomes such as hernia recurrence rates were reported in 80 studies (87 per cent). A total of nine different definitions for detecting hernia recurrence were identified. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 31 studies (34 per cent), with 18 different assessment measures used.

Conclusions

This review demonstrates the significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting in incisional hernia studies, with significant variation in outcome assessment and definitions. This is coupled with significant under-reporting of patient-reported outcomes.

Pooled data analysis of primary ventral (PVH) and incisional hernia (IH) repair is no more acceptable: results of a systematic review and metanalysis of current literature

PURPOSE

Primary (PVHs) and incisional (IHs) ventral hernias represent a common indication for surgery. Nevertheless, most of the papers presented in literature analyze both types of defect together, thus potentially introducing a bias in the results of interpretation. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to highlight the differences between these two entities.

METHODS

Methods MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were reviewed to identify studies evaluating the outcomes of both open and laparoscopic repair with mesh of PVHs vs IHs. Search was restricted to English language literature. Risk of bias was assessed with MINORS score. Primary outcome was recurrence, and secondary outcomes were baseline characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative data. Fixed effects model was used unless significant heterogeneity, assessed with the Higgins I square (I²), was encountered.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 783 hits, after screening; 11 retrospective trials were selected including 38,727 patients. Mean MINORS of included trials was 15.2 (range 5-21). The estimated pooled proportion difference for recurrence was - 0.09 (- 0.11; - 0.07) between the two groups in favor of the PVH group. On metanalysis, PVHs were smaller in area and diameters, affected younger and less comorbid patients, and were more frequently singular; the operative time and length of stay was quicker. Other complications did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

Our paper supports the hypothesis that PVH and IH are different conditions with the latter being more challenging to treat. Accordingly, EHS classifications should be adopted systematically as well as pooling data analysis should be no longer performed in clinical trials.