[Expert opinion on the basic surgical technique for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair]

Preaponeurotic endoscopic repair (REPA) indication in men could be controversial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of REPA and establish if any differences in complications and evolution are present between males and females.

METHODS

A retrospective study including consecutive patients operated by REPA approach between November 2017 and April 2019 was conducted. Demographic data, operative times, postoperative complications, and hospital stay were analyzed. The EuraHS-QoL score was used to assess postoperative pain, daily activity constraints, and aesthetic discomfort. The results were compared between sexes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 19.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were included and 53.7% were male. Patients had a mean age of 50.7 years and a mean BMI of 28.7. The average RAD (Rectus Abdominis Diastasis) size was 2.6 cm (range of 2-5 cm). Seroma was significantly more frequent in males, with an incidence of 55.2 and 24% for females (p = 0.02). Three cases required reintervention (5.5% of total cases), which corresponded to a cystic seroma, an abdominal wall hematoma, and a hernia recurrence. The three cases were males and a p value of 0.04 was obtained when comparing reintervention rates between males and females. No cases of surgical wound infection nor cutaneous necrosis were recorded. No conversions were needed. The mean postoperative pain was 2.25, the mean daily activity constraints score was 2.63, and the degree of aesthetic discomfort was 1.23 with no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

The correction of small midline defect associated with minor RAD using REPA seems feasible and reproducible. REPA had achieved good results in females, but in males, the outcomes were poorer.

A new classification for seroma after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic techniques are being used increasingly in the repair of ventral hernias, but different incidences and complications have been described as potential risks of this approach. Seroma formation has been documented as one of the most common complication, although most of the time remains asymptomatic and it can be considered just an incident. The incidence of seroma after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair has not been properly documented and analyzed since the definition used by different authors is not the same from one series to another. We present a new classification of clinical seroma in order to try to establish the real incidence of this potential complication.

CLINICAL CLASSIFICATION

Clinical seromas could be detected during physical examination in many patients after LVHR, but in most of the cases they do not cause any problem or just a minimum discomfort that allows normal activity. Based on this fact and on the need of carrying out a medical or an invasive therapy to treat them, five groups can be established in order to classified this entity: Type 0, no clinical seroma (being 0a no seroma after clinical examination and radiological examinations and 0b those detected radiologically but not detected clinically); Type I, clinical seroma lasting less than 1 month; Type II (seroma with excessive duration), clinical seroma lasting more than 1 month (being IIa between 1 and 3 months and IIb between 3 and 6 months); Type III (symptomatic seromas that may need medical treatment), minor seroma-related complications (seroma lasting more than 6 month, esthetic complaints of the patient due to seroma, discomfort related to the seroma that does not allow normal activity to the patient, pain, superficial infection with cellulites); and Type IV (seroma that need to be treated), mayor seroma-related complications (need to puncture the seroma, seroma drained spontaneously, applicable to open approach, deep infection, recurrence and mesh rejection). It is important to differentiate between a complication and an incident, being considered seroma as an incident if it is classified as seroma Type I or II, and a complication if it is included in group III and IV. The highest classification is the one that should be used in order to describe the type of seroma.

CONCLUSIONS

Seroma is one of the most common complications after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair although its real clinical incidence is variable since it has been described in the literature following different parameters. It is observed in almost all cases by radiological examinations, but it is not determined if must be considered an incident or a complication. For these reasons, a new classification of seroma has been proposed in order to unify criteria among surgeons when describing their experience. This classification could be also used in the future to measure the effect of new methods proposed to reduce seroma formation to evaluate the incidence of seroma depending on the mesh used, and it could be also proposed to be used to describe the incidence of seroma after open ventral hernia repair.

Survey on Ventral Hernias: Surgeon Indications, Contraindications, and Management of Large Ventral Hernias

Repair of ventral hernias constitutes one of the most common surgical procedures. Although an abundance of data exists on objective outcome measures, very little information exists on subjective measures of surgeon preference and patient satisfaction in surgical management of ventral hernias. Moreover, there are minimal data on indications for elective repair of ventral hernias. Two questionnaires were sent to a population of general and plastic surgeons active in hernia surgery. The first of these aimed at gathering information from surgeons about their indications and contraindications for repair of ventral hernias. The second survey was aimed at determining surgeons’ perception of patient satisfaction with repair of large ventral hernias (greater than 15 cm width). Five hundred sixty-eight surgeons responded to the first survey and 336 responded to the second survey. The most common indications for elective repair of abdominal wall hernias were generalized pain (68.7%) and cosmesis (54.6%), whereas the most common contraindications were morbid obesity (43.3%), American Society of Anesthesiologists Class III or IV (35.4%), and enterocutaneous fistula (33.1%). The majority of surgeons do not routinely repair large abdominal wall hernias in asymptomatic patients, but 31.6 per cent do repair asymptomatic large hernias. Most surgeons reported that the majority of patients had resolution of pain and subjective impression of improved cosmesis after surgery. This study demonstrates uniform indications and contraindications for surgical repair of ventral hernias among surgeons as well as surgeons’ perception of improvements in satisfaction of most patients after surgery. Future studies will focus on comparing surgeon and patient satisfaction.

Which patients benefit most from laparoscopic ventral hernia repair? A comparative study

PURPOSE

To establish which patients suffering ventral hernia benefit the most from laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

From January 2005 to October 2008, 126 patients underwent surgery due to incisional hernia at our University Hospital. Patients were assigned to laparoscopic surgery (n=60) or conventional surgery (n=66) at the surgeon's discretion. Patients were subdivided according to the greater diameter of the defect: (G1, defect <5 cm; G2, defect 5 to 15 cm; and G3, defect >15 cm). Data on patient demographic, clinical, and perioperative variables were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

Groups were comparable in terms of sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, size of defect, and proportion of primary repairs. Four patients were converted to open surgery. Mean hospital stay in the group with the smaller hernias (G1 was 3.16 d laparoscopic surgery vs. 2.87 d conventional surgery, P>0.05). Hospital stay for patients who underwent laparoscopy was shorter in G3 (4.25 d Lap vs. 12.6 d Open; P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with very large incisional hernias are those who benefit the most from laparoscopic treatment.

Multicentric observational cohort study evaluating a composite mesh with incorporated oxidized regenerated cellulose in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

BACKGROUND

A variety of newly developed mesh products have recently become available to use inside the peritoneal cavity. This analysis reports the first clinical data evaluating the experience with the use of Proceed mesh in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

During a 6-month period, 114 adult patients underwent a laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using an intra-abdominal placement of a Proceed mesh. The operative procedure was stratified for all centers. Perioperatively, different parameters were evaluated considering the conversion rate to open procedure, complications such as seroma and hematoma, bowel lesions, urinary retention, acute, and chronic pain, mesh infection, and recurrences.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 45 years (range 19-84 years). There were no conversions to open repair and no mortality. Complications included 12 seromas/hematomas (four aspirated), chronic discomfort in two patients, and urinary retention in one patient. There have been four recurrences (3.5%), occurring 3, 4, 4, and 15 months after surgery, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 27 months (range 12-38 months). There have been no documented infections of the mesh.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicentric study documents a favorable experience using large-pore mesh in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. There were no major complications related to the mesh. Technical advantages considering mesh handling and long-term advantages considering chronic pain might be of interest with the use of this lightweight mesh for minimally invasive ventral hernia repair.

[Laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernia under spinal anesthesia]

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery is usually performed with the patient under general anesthesia. In open surgery, regional anesthesia has been found to have fewer adverse effects than general anesthesia. We studied whether spinal anesthesia is feasible in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Bupivacaine and fentanyl were administered to obtain T2 block; midazolam was used for sedation. Patients underwent laparoscopic intraperitoneal hernia repair using an ePTFE prosthesis fixed with a double crown technique. An intra-abdominal pressure of 12 mmHg and low-flow insufflation (1.5 L/minute) were used for pneumoperitoneum.

RESULTS

Nineteen out of 23 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair under spinal anesthesia; conversion to open surgery or general anesthesia was required in four patients. Additional sedation successfully relieved pain in patients with abdominal and shoulder discomfort (10.5%). Hypotension occurred in 68% of patients but was easily resolved by fluid administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal anesthesia is feasible and well tolerated in laparoscopic hernia repair. Studies comparing spinal and general anesthesia in this field are warranted.

Seguimiento de la contracción de las mallas de polipropileno empleadas en la reparación de eventraciones

INTRODUCTION

Polypropylene (PP) mesh is one of the most frequently used materials in the surgical repair of ventral hernias. Despite the widely recognized ability of PP to integrate into the host tissue, these meshes may shrink during the healing process in the patient.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify polypropylene mesh shrinkage.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

A radiological follow-up study was performed in 23 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for midline ventral hernias with diameters of at least 5 cm. PP meshes were marked with titanium clips at the ends of their longest transverse and longitudinal axes. X-rays were performed on the first postoperative day and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. The distances between clips were measured and the area of the mesh was calculated.

RESULTS

Seventeen women and six men underwent surgery. In nine patients the mesh was placed on the prefascial space (onlay) and in 14 in the subfascial space (sublay). There were four seromas in patients with mesh placed with the onlay technique. The reduction in the calculated area was 12% at 1 month, 24% at 3 months, 29% at 6 months and 34% at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

PP mesh provided excellent clinical results. Radiological surveillance revealed substantial shrinkage, mainly in the first 3 months after implantation.