Retromuscular sutured incisional hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial to compare open and laparoscopic approach

Barbed and Non-Barbed Suture Materials for Ventral Hernia Repair: An Experimental Study

Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the tissue response and strength of traditional and unidirectional suture materials, depending on the conditions of use and the timing following implantation. Methods: Eighty male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to four groups depending on the suture used: unidirectional absorbable V-locTM 180 or non-absorbable V-locTM PBT and traditional absorbable MaxonTM or non-absorbable NovafilTM. Three and six weeks following the closure of the abdominal wall defect (AWD) and subcutaneous suture implantation at the withers according to group assignment, 10 animals from each group were euthanized for implanted sutures mechanical testing and histological examination. Results: The inflammatory reaction in the AWD closure area was maximal and significantly different from the subcutaneous implantation by week 3 for all groups. At six weeks, the tissue reaction did not depend on the place of implantation. However, four rats from the MaxonTM group demonstrated suture failure with diastasis formation. Non-absorbable barbed sutures exhibited an absence of suture failure and the maximum scar thickness. Both intact absorbable materials (V-LocTM 180 and MaxonTM) exhibited a significant breaking strength margin over the non-absorbable. By week 6, the preserved strength of the V-locTM 180 sutures at the AWD was 33% (15-58%), and under the skin-49.7% (48-59%) (p = 0.005). For MaxonTM, these values were 38% (35-48%) for the AWD and 44% (34-49%) for the subcutaneous implantation. Conclusions: Absorbable and non-absorbable suture materials, depending on the conditions and timing of implantation, cause various tissue reactions which could affect the wound healing and the number of postoperative complications.

Comparison between the open and the laparoscopic approach in the primary ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ventral hernia repair underwent various developments in the previous decade. Laparoscopic primary ventral hernia repair may be an alternative to open repair since it prevents large abdominal incisions. However, whether laparoscopy improves clinical outcomes has not been systematically assessed.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to compare the clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus open approach of primary ventral hernias.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted in February 2023. All randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopy with the open approach in patients with a primary ventral hernia were included. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of risk ratios was performed for hernia recurrence, local infection, wound dehiscence, and local seroma. Meta-analysis for weighted mean differences was performed for postoperative pain, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and time until return to work.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall hernia recurrence was twice less likely to occur in laparoscopy (RR = 0.49; 95%CI = 0.32-0.74; p < 0.001; I2 = 29%). Local infection (RR = 0.30; 95%CI = 0.19-0.49; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), wound dehiscence (RR = 0.08; 95%CI = 0.02-0.32; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and local seroma (RR = 0.34; 95%CI = 0.19-0.59; p < 0.001; I2 = 14%) were also significantly less likely in patients undergoing laparoscopy. Severe heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on postoperative pain, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and time until return to work.

CONCLUSION

The results of available studies are controversial and have a high risk of bias, small sample sizes, and no well-defined protocols. However, the laparoscopic approach seems associated with a lower frequency of hernia recurrence, local infection, wound dehiscence, and local seroma.

The INCH-trial: a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing short- and long-term outcomes of open and laparoscopic surgery for incisional hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair is increasingly performed worldwide and expected to be superior to conventional open repair regarding hospital stay and quality of life (QoL). The INCisional Hernia-Trial was designed to test this hypothesis.

METHODS

A multicenter parallel randomized controlled open-label trial with a superiority design was conducted in six hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with primary or recurrent incisional hernias were randomized by computer-guided block-randomization to undergo either conventional open or laparoscopic repair. Primary endpoint was postoperative length of hospital stay in days. Secondary endpoints included QoL, complications, and recurrences. Patients were followed up for at least 5 years.

RESULTS

Hundred-and-two patients were recruited and randomized. In total, 88 patients underwent surgery and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (44 in the open group, 44 in the laparoscopic group). Mean age was 59.5 years, gender division was equal, and BMI was 28.8 kg/m. The trial was concluded early for futility after an unplanned interim analysis, which showed that the hypothesis needed to be rejected. There was no difference in primary outcome: length of hospital stay was 3 (range 1-36) days in the open group and 3 (range 1-12) days in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.481). There were no significant between-group differences in QoL questionnaires on the short and long term. Satisfaction was impaired in the open group. Overall recurrence rate was 19%, of which 16% in the open and 23% in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.25) at a mean follow-up of 6.6 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled trial, short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic incisional hernia repair were not superior to open surgery. The persisting high recurrence rates, reduced QoL, and suboptimal satisfaction warrant the need for patient's expectation management in the preoperative process and individualized surgical management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register NTR2808.

Laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias: the Italian national guidelines

Primary and incisional ventral hernias are significant public health issues for their prevalence, variability of professional practices, and high costs associated with the treatment In 2019, the Board of Directors of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted the development of new guidelines on the laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias, according to the new national regulation. In 2022, the guideline was accepted by the government agency, and it was published, in Italian, on the SNLG website. Here, we report the adopted methodology and the guideline's recommendations, as established in its diffusion policy. This guideline is produced according to the methodology indicated by the SNGL and applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Fifteen recommendations were produced as a result of 4 PICO questions. The level of recommendation was conditional for 12 of them and conditional to moderate for one. This guideline's strengths include relying on an extensive systematic review of the literature and applying a rigorous GRADE method. It also has several limitations. The literature on the topic is continuously and rapidly evolving; our results are based on findings that need constant re-appraisal. It is focused only on minimally invasive techniques and cannot consider broader issues (e.g., diagnostics, indication for surgery, pre-habilitation).

Favourable outcomes after Retro-Rectus (Rives-Stoppa) Mesh Repair as Treatment for Non-Complex Ventral Abdominal Wall Hernia, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess prevalence of hernia recurrence, surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, serious complications, and mortality after retro-rectus repair.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Ventral abdominal wall hernia is a common problem, tied to increasing frailty and obesity of patients undergoing surgery. For non-complex ventral hernia, retro-rectus (Rives-Stoppa) repair is considered the gold standard treatment. Level-1 evidence confirming this presumed superiority is lacking.

METHODS

Five databases were searched for studies reporting on retro-rectus repair. Single-armed and comparative randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Outcomes were pooled with mixed-effects, inverse variance or random-effects models.

RESULTS

Ninety-three studies representing 12440 patients undergoing retro-rectus repair were included. Pooled hernia recurrence was estimated at 3.2% (95%CI: 2.2-4.2%, n = 11049) after minimally 12 months and 4.1%, (95%CI: 2.9-5.5%, n = 3830) after minimally 24 months. Incidences of SSI and seroma were estimated at respectively 5.2% (95%CI: 4.2-6.4%, n = 4891) and 5.5% (95%CI: 4.4-6.8%, n = 3650). Retro-rectus repair was associated with lower recurrence rates compared to onlay repair (OR: 0.27, 95%CI: 0.15-0.51, p < 0.001) and equal recurrence rates compared to intraperitoneal onlay (IPOM) repair (OR: 0.92, 95%CI: 0.75-1.12, p = 0.400). Retro-rectus repair was associated with more SSI than IPOM repair (OR: 1.8, 95%CI: 1.03-3.14, p = 0.038). Minimally invasive retro-rectus repair displayed low rates of recurrence (1.3%, 95%CI: 0.7-2.3%, n = 849) and SSI (1.5%, 95%CI: 0.8-2.8%, n = 982), albeit based on non-randomized studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Retro-rectus (Rives-Stoppa) repair results in excellent outcomes, superior or similar to other techniques for all outcomes except surgical site infection. The latter rarely occurred, yet less frequently after IPOM repair, which is usually performed by laparoscopy.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction

With the advancement in technology as well as surgical techniques, laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) is more commonly being performed as compared to open repair in various centres throughout the world. Our study aimed to compare the short-term operative outcomes between LVHR and open repair.

Materials and methods

Sixty patients diagnosed with noncomplicated ventral hernias were included in this prospective study and were randomly divided into the laparoscopic group and the open group. The two groups were compared to evaluate operative time, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay and time taken to return to normal activity. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Mean operative time was longer in LVHR (116 min) as compared to open repair (67 min)(p<0.01). Patients experienced more pain on the first and seventh postoperative days in the open group (p<0.01) and they also had a longer duration of hospital stay as compared to the laparoscopic group (6.23 ± 0.35 vs 2.17 ± 1.12 days, p = 0.02). Patients in the laparoscopic group returned to normal activity faster as compared to the open group (1.47 ± 0.11 vs 2.87 ± 0.34, p<0.01).

Conclusion

LVHR carries a significant advantage over open hernia repair, especially in terms of reduced postoperative pain, duration of hospital stay, and early resumption of normal activity.

Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair

BACKGROUND

The use of a mesh in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair lowers the recurrence rate  and is the accepted standard of care for larger defects. In laparoscopic primary ventral or incisional hernia repair the insertion of a mesh is indispensable. Different mesh fixation techniques have been used and refined over the years. The type of fixation technique is claimed to have a major impact on recurrence rates, chronic pain, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and complication rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of different mesh fixation techniques for primary and incisional ventral hernia repair on hernia recurrence, chronic pain, HRQOL and complications.

SEARCH METHODS

On 2 October 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid MEDLINE(R)) Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R)), Ovid Embase, and two trials registries. We also performed handsearches, and contacted experts from the European Hernia Society (EHS).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with primary ventral or incisional hernia that compared different types of mesh fixation techniques (absorbable/nonabsorbable sutures, absorbable/nonabsorbable tacks, fibrin glue, and combinations of these techniques).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in standardised piloted tables, or if necessary, directly into Review Manager 5. We assessed risks of bias with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Two review authors independently selected the publications, and extracted data on results. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. For pooling we used an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis or the Peto method in the case of rare events. We prepared GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables. For laparoscopic repair we considered absorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable tacks, and nonabsorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable sutures as key comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials with a total of 787 participants. The number of randomised participants ranged from 40 to 199 per comparison. Eight studies included participants with both primary and incisional ventral hernia. One study included only participants with umbilical hernia, and another only participants with incisional hernia. Hernia size varied between studies. We judged the risk of bias as moderate to high. Absorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable tacks Recurrence rates in the groups were similar (RR 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 3.22; 2 studies, 101 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between absorbable tacks and nonabsorbable tacks in recurrence because the certainty of evidence was very low. Evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up, chronic pain and HRQOL is negligible. Nonabsorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable sutures At six months there was one recurrence in each group (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.79; 1 study, 36 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between nonabsorbable tacks and nonabsorbable sutures in recurrence because the certainty of evidence was very low. Evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up and chronic pain is negligible. We found no study that assessed HRQOL. Absorbable tacks compared to absorbable sutures No recurrence was observed at one year (very low certainty of evidence). Early postoperative pain was higher in the tacks group (VAS 0 - 10: MD -2.70, 95% CI -6.67 to 1.27; 1 study, 48 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between absorbable tacks compared to absorbable sutures in early postoperative pain because the certainty of evidence was very low. The MD for late follow-up pain was -0.30 (95% CI -0.74 to 0.14; 1 study, 48 participants). We found no study that assessed HRQOL. Combination of different fixation types (tacks and sutures) or materials (absorbable and nonabsorbable) There were mostly negligible or only small differences between combinations (e.g. tacks plus sutures) compared to a single technique (e.g. sutures only), as well as combinations compared to other combinations (e.g. absorbable sutures combined with nonabsorbable sutures compared to absorbable tacks combined with nonabsorbable tacks) in all outcomes. It is uncertain whether there is an advantage for combining different fixation types or materials for recurrence, chronic pain, HRQOL and complications, because the evidence certainty was very low or low, or we found no study on important outcomes. Nonabsorbable tacks compared to fibrin sealant The two studies showed different directions of effects: one showed higher rates for nonabsorbable tacks, and the other showed higher rates for fibrin sealant. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up, chronic pain and HRQOL is negligible. Absorbable tacks compared to fibrin sealant One recurrence in the tacks group and none in the fibrin sealant group were noted after one year (low certainty of evidence). Early postoperative pain might be slightly lower using tacks (VAS 0 - 100; MD -12.40, 95% CI -27.60 to, 2.80;1 study, 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). The pattern of pain and HRQOL course over time (up to 1 year) was similar in the groups (low certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently none of the techniques can be considered superior to any other, because the certainty of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Robotic vs Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair With Intraperitoneal Mesh: The PROVE-IT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Despite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh in the United States, there is no level I evidence comparing it with the traditional laparoscopic approach. This randomized clinical trial sought to demonstrate a clinical benefit to the robotic approach.

Objective

To determine whether robotic approach to ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh would result in less postoperative pain.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A registry-based, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical trial at the Cleveland Clinic Center for Abdominal Core Health, Cleveland, Ohio, completed between September 2017 and January 2020, with a minimum follow-up duration of 30 days. Two surgeons at 1 academic tertiary care hospital. Patients with primary or incisional midline ventral hernias of an anticipated width of 7 cm or less presenting in the elective setting and able to tolerate a minimally invasive repair.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to a standardized laparoscopic or robotic ventral hernia repair with fascial closure and intraperitoneal mesh.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The trial was powered to detect a 30% difference in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11) on the first postoperative day. Secondary end points included the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Intensity short form (3a), hernia-specific quality of life, operative time, wound morbidity, recurrence, length of stay, and cost.

Results

Seventy-five patients completed their minimally invasive hernia repair: 36 laparoscopic and 39 robotic. Baseline demographics and hernia characteristics were comparable. Robotic operations had a longer median operative time (146 vs 94 minutes; P < .001). There were 2 visceral injuries in each cohort but no full-thickness enterotomies or unplanned reoperations. There were no significant differences in NRS-11 scores preoperatively or on postoperative days 0, 1, 7, or 30. Specifically, median NRS-11 scores on the first postoperative day were the same (5 vs 5; P = .61). Likewise, postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 3a and hernia-specific quality-of-life scores, as well as length of stay and complication rates, were similar. The robotic platform adds cost (total cost ratio, 1.13 vs 0.97; P = .03), driven by the cost of additional operating room time (1.25 vs 0.85; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh have comparable outcomes. The increased operative time and proportional cost of the robotic approach are not offset by a measurable clinical benefit.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03283982.

A new three-step hybrid approach is a safe procedure for incisional hernia: early experiences with a single centre retrospective cohort

Purpose

In this study, a three-step novel surgical technique was developed for incisional hernia, in which a laparoscopic procedure with a mini-laparotomy is combined: so-called ‘three-step incisional hybrid repair’. The aim of this study was to reduce the risk of intestinal lacerations during adhesiolysis and recurrence rate by better symmetrical overlap placement of the mesh.

Objectives

To evaluate first perioperative outcomes with this technique.

Methods

From 2016 to 2020, 70 patients (65.7% females) with an incisional hernia of > 2 and ≤ 10 cm underwent a elective three-step incisional hybrid repair in two non-academic hospitals performed by two surgeons specialised in abdominal wall surgery. Intra- and postoperative complications, operation time, hospitalisation time and hernia recurrence were assessed.

Results

Mean operation time was 100 min. Mean hernia size was 4.8 cm; 45 patients (64.3%) had a hernia of 1–5 cm, 25 patients (35.7%) of 6–10 cm. Eight patients had a grade 1 complication (11.4%), five patients a grade 2 (7.1%), two patients (2.8%) a grade 4 complication and one patient (1.4%) a grade 5 complication. Five patients had an intraoperative complication (7.0%), two enterotomies, one serosa injury, one omentum bleeding and one laceration of an epigastric vessel. Mean length of stay was 3.3 days. Four patients (5.6%) developed a hernia recurrence during a mean follow-up of 19.5 weeks.

Conclusion

A three-step hybrid incisional hernia repair is a safe alternative for incisional hernia repair. Intraoperative complications rate was low.

Minimally invasive repair for lateral ventral hernia: tailored approach from a hernia centre at a tertiary care institution

INTRODUCTION

Lateral ventral hernia (LVH) is rare and can be primary or secondary. Surgical treatment of this rare hernia type is challenging due the anatomic location and technical challenges in placement and secure anchoring of mesh.

METHOD

Patient demographic data, intra-operative data and post-operative outcomes on all LVH repairs performed with endo-laparoscopic and robotic approach between 2016 to 2018 were reviewed and analysed.

RESULTS

22 LVH were repaired in 21 patients. 9 had primary hernia and 13 had secondary hernia. All patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for hernia repair with no conversion to open surgery. Fascial defect closure and placement of mesh were performed in all cases. Different approaches were utilized: 9 hernia repaired with laparoscopic intra-peritoneal on-lay mesh technique with defect closure (IPOM +), 4 had laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal repair (TAPP), another 4 had extended totally extra-peritoneal repair (eTEP), 3 had robotic TAPP (rTAPP) and 2 repaired with trans-abdominal partial extra-peritoneal (TAPE) approach. 4 (19%) of the patients developed post-operative seroma which were managed conservatively. No other significant complication was noted, and no chronic pain or recurrence reported within a minimum follow-up of 12 months.

CONCLUSION

This case series gives a broad outline of possible MIS options available for LVH repair and recommendations for a tailored approach. The surgical technique needs to be individualized according to the size and anatomic location of the defect, other intra-operative findings and patient characteristics.

International classification of abdominal wall planes (ICAP) to describe mesh insertion for ventral hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Nomenclature for mesh insertion during ventral hernia repair is inconsistent and confusing. Several terms, including 'inlay', 'sublay' and 'underlay', can refer to the same anatomical planes in the indexed literature. This frustrates comparisons of surgical practice and may invalidate meta-analyses comparing surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to establish an international classification of abdominal wall planes.

METHODS

A Delphi study was conducted involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall surgeons. Different terms describing anterior abdominal wall planes were identified via literature review and expert consensus. The initial list comprised 59 possible terms. Panellists completed a questionnaire that suggested a list of options for individual abdominal wall planes. Consensus on a term was predefined as occurring if selected by at least 80 per cent of panellists. Terms scoring less than 20 per cent were removed.

RESULTS

Voting started August 2018 and was completed by January 2019. In round 1, 43 terms (73 per cent) were selected by less than 20 per cent of panellists and 37 new terms were suggested, leaving 53 terms for round 2. Four planes reached consensus in round 2, with the terms 'onlay', 'inlay', 'preperitoneal' and 'intraperitoneal'. Thirty-five terms (66 per cent) were selected by less than 20 per cent of panellists and were removed. After round 3, consensus was achieved for 'anterectus', 'interoblique', 'retro-oblique' and 'retromuscular'. Default consensus was achieved for the 'retrorectus' and 'transversalis fascial' planes.

CONCLUSION

Consensus concerning abdominal wall planes was agreed by 20 internationally recognized surgeons. Adoption should improve communication and comparison among surgeons and research studies.

Use of imaging for pre- and post-operative characterisation of ventral hernia: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Complex ventral hernia (CVH) repair is performed increasingly, exacerbated by the obesity epidemic. Imaging can characterise hernia morphology and diagnose recurrence. By systematic review we investigated the extent to which studies employ imaging.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for studies of ventral hernia repair from January 1995 to March 2016. Hernias of all size were eligible. Independent reviewers screened articles and extracted data from selected studies related to study design, use of pre- and post-operative hernia imaging and the proportion of subjects imaged. The review was registered: PROSPERO CRD42016043071.

RESULTS

15,771 records were identified initially. 174 full-texts were examined and 158 ultimately included in the systematic review [31 randomised controlled trials (RCTs); 32 cohort studies; 95 retrospective cohort studies]. 31,874 subjects were reported overall. Only 19 (12%) studies employed pre-operative imaging for hernia characterisation and 46 (29%) post-operatively [equating to 511 (2%) of all pre-operative subjects and 1123 (4%) post-operative]. Furthermore, most studies employing imaging did not do so in all subjects: Just 6 (4%) of the 158 studies used imaging in all subjects pre-operatively and just 4 (3%) post-operatively, i.e. imaging was usually applied to a proportion of patients only. Moreover, the exact proportion was frequently not specified. Studies using imaging frequently stated that "imaging", "radiography" or "radiology" was used but did not specify the modality precisely nor the proportion of subjects imaged.

CONCLUSION

Despite the ability to characterise ventral hernia morphology and recurrence with precision, most indexed studies do not employ imaging. Where imaging is used, data are often reported incompletely. Advances in knowledge: (1) This systematic review is the first to focus on the use of imaging in surgical studies of ventral hernia repair. (2) Studies of ventral hernia repair rarely use imaging, either to characterise hernias pre-operatively or to diagnose recurrence, despite the latter being the primary outcome of most studies. (3) Failure to use imaging will result in incomplete hernia characterisation and underestimate recurrence rates in studies of surgical repair.

What Is the Current Knowledge About Sublay/Retro-Rectus Repair of Incisional Hernias?

Introduction: There continues to be very little agreement among experts on the precise treatment strategy for incisional hernias. That is the conclusion drawn from the very limited scientific evidence available on the repair of incisional hernias. The present review now aims to critically assess the data available on the sublay/retro-rectus technique for repair of incisional hernia. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the literature was performed in May 2018 using Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. This article is based on 77 publications. Results: The number of available RCTs that permit evaluation of the role of the sublay/retro-rectus technique in the repair of only incisional hernia is very small. The existing data suggest that the sublay/retro-rectus technique has disadvantages compared with the laparoscopic IPOM technique for repair of incisional hernia, but in that respect has advantages over all other open techniques. However, the few existing studies provide only a limited level of evidence for assessment purposes. Conclusion: Further RCTs based on a standardized technique are urgently needed for evaluation of the role of the sublay/retro-rectus incisional hernia repair technique.

Nomenclature in Abdominal Wall Hernias: Is It Time for Consensus?

Abdominal wall reconstruction is a rapidly evolving area of surgical interest. Due to the increase in prevalence and size of ventral hernias and the high recurrence rates, the academic community has become motivated to find the best reconstruction techniques. Whilst interrogating the abdominal wall reconstruction literature, we discovered an inconsistency in hernia nomenclature that must be addressed. The terms used to describe the anatomical planes of mesh implantation ‘inlay’, ‘sublay’ and ‘underlay’ are misinterpreted throughout. We describe the misinterpretation of these terms and give evidence of where it exists in the literature. We give three critical arguments of why these misinterpretations hinder advances in abdominal wall reconstruction research. The correct definitions of the anatomical planes, and their respective terms, are described and illustrated. Clearly defined nomenclature is required as academic surgeons strive to improve abdominal wall reconstruction outcomes and lower complication rates.

The outcome of A. Double mesh intraperitoneal repair for complex ventral hernia: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Complex ventral hernia is a challenging surgical entity, commonly attended with huge defect, loss of domain and possible soft tissue infection. It is difficult to repair, especially with multiple recurrences. Numerous methods of repair have been described with no evidence-based data available to prefer one method over the other. The purpose of this study is to determine the long-term outcome of the proposed new modification of intraperitoneal mesh repair procedure in complex ventral hernia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective analysis utilizing the prospectively-maintained dataset in our institution during the study period between January 2003 and June 2017. Patients who fit the inclusion criteria of having a complex ventral hernia, whether de-novo or recurrent and were subjected to A. Double Mesh Intraperitoneal Repair (ADMIR) procedure were included in the study. Patients were followed up till recurrence or lost to follow through a period ranging from 6 to 174 months (mean: 142.96 ± SE: 11.91).

RESULTS

Forty-nine cases were included in this study (38 females and 11 males) with a female to male ratio of 3.5:1. The age range was from 28 to 81 years (mean 49 ± 12.4). BMI range from 25 to 42 (mean 33.6 ± 5.42). The ratio between the hernia sac volume and abdominal cavity volume was more than 20% in 12 patients (24.5%), who were subjected to preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum (PPP) for an average period of two weeks. Hernias were recurrent in 28 cases (57%) and associated comorbidities were observed in 29 patients (63%). Postoperative complications occurred in 19 patients (38.7%), among them only 2 patients developed recurrence (4%) after a mean follow up period of 142 months. Five patients were lost to follow and were included in the Kaplan and Meier survival analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

ADMIR procedure is successful for the repair of complex ventral hernias as it is applicable to all sites of ventral hernias. The mesh is tension free hidden within the abdomen allowing for early mobilization and the complications rate is acceptable with low recurrence rate.

The Treatment of Incisional Hernia

BACKGROUND

A meta-analysis of studies from multiple countries has shown that the incidence of incisional hernia varies from 4% to 10% depending on the type of operation. No epidemiological surveys have been conducted so far. The worst possible complication of an incisional hernia if it is not treated surgically is incarceration. In this article, we present the main surgical methods of treating this condition. We also evaluate the available randomized and controlled trials (RCTs) in which open and laparoscopic techniques were compared and analyze the patients' quality of life.

METHODS

We selectively searched PubMed for relevant literature using the search terms "incisional hernia" and "randomized controlled trial." 9 RCTs were included in the analysis. The endpoints of the meta-analysis were the number of reoperations, complications, and recurrences. The observed events were studied statistically by correlation of two unpaired groups with a fixed-effects model and with a random-effects model. We analyzed the quality of life in our.

RESULTS

Open surgery and laparoscopic surgery for the repair of incisional hernias have similar rates of reoperation (odds ratio [OR] 0.419 favoring laparoscopy, 95% confidence interval [0.159; 1.100]; p = 0.077). The rates of surgical complications are also similar (OR 0.706; 95% CI [0.278; 1.783]; p = 0.461), although the data are highly heterogeneous, and the recurrence rates are comparable as well (OR 1.301; 95% CI [0,761; 2,225]; p = 0.336). In our own patient cohort in Würzburg, the quality of life was better in multiple categories one year after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The operative treatment of incisional hernia markedly improves patients' quality of life. The currently available evidence regarding the complication rates of open and laparoscopic surgical repair is highly heterogeneous, and further RCTs on this subject would therefore be desirable. Moreover, new study models are needed so that well-founded individualized treatment algorithms can be developed.

A systematic methodological review of reported perioperative variables, postoperative outcomes and hernia recurrence from randomised controlled trials of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and standardised datasets are needed

BACKGROUND

This systematic review assesses the perioperative variables and post-operative outcomes reported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of VH repair. This review focuses particularly on definitions of hernia recurrence and techniques used for detection.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim is to identify and quantify the inconsistencies in perioperative variable and postoperative outcome reporting, so as to justify future development of clear definitions of hernia recurrence and a standardised dataset of such variables.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for elective VH repair RCTs reported January 1995 to March 2016 inclusive. Three independent reviewers performed article screening, and two reviewers independently extracted data. Hernia recurrence, recurrence rate, timing and definitions of recurrence, and techniques used to detect recurrence were extracted. We also assessed reported post-operative complications, standardised operative outcomes, patient reported outcomes, pre-operative CT scan hernia dimensions, intra-operative variables, patient co-morbidity, and hernia morphology.

RESULTS

31 RCTs (3367 patients) were identified. Only 6 (19.3%) defined hernia recurrence and methods to detect recurrence were inconsistent. Sixty-four different clinical outcomes were reported across the RCTs, with wound infection (30 trials, 96.7%), hernia recurrence (30, 96.7%), seroma (29, 93.5%), length of hospital stay (22, 71%) and haematoma (21, 67.7%) reported most frequently. Fourteen (45%), 11 (35%) and 0 trials reported CT measurements of hernia defect area, width and loss of domain, respectively. No trial graded hernias using generally accepted scales.

CONCLUSION

VH RCTs report peri- and post-operative variables inconsistently, and with poor definitions. A standardised minimum dataset, including definitions of recurrence, is required.

Long-term results of retromuscular hernia repair: a single center experience

INTRODUCTION

Incisional hernia (IH) is one of the most frequent postoperative complications after abdominal surgery. There are multiple surgical techniques described for IH repair. The aim of the study is to evaluate the effect of primary fascial closure on long-term results in retromuscular hernia repair (RHR) for incisional hernias.

METHODS

A total of 132 patients underwent RHR for IH were included in our study. 109 patients were evaluated in 2009 and 55 patients in 2015 for short and long-term results.

RESULTS

Among 132 patients perfromed RHR, fascia was closed in 107 (81%) and left open in 25 (19%) patients. The mean age of patients was 57.9 ± 11.8 years. Average mesh area was 439.8 ± 194.6 cm², hernia area was 112 ± 77.5 cm² and open area after repair was 40.8 ± 43.3 cm². Mean follow-up of 104 patients regarding postoperative complications evaluated in 2009 was 30.7 ± 14.1 months. Recurrent IH was observed in 6 (4.5%) patients according to data collected in 2009. Long-term results were; mean follow-up period was 91 ± 20.2 months (20-112 months) and recurrent IH was observed in 4 (7.3%) patients.

CONCLUSION

Retromuscular repair for incisional hernia regardless of the fascial closure gives high patient satisfaction, less recurrence rates and complications in long-term follow-up.

Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair: a retrospective cohort study with costs analysis on 269 patients

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes and institutional costs of elective laparoscopic and open incisional hernia mesh repairs and to identify independent predictors of prolonged operative time and hospital length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

Retrospective observational cohort study on 269 consecutive patients who underwent elective incisional hernia mesh repair, laparoscopic group (N = 94) and open group (N = 175), between May 2004 and July 2014.

RESULTS

Operative time was shorter in the laparoscopic versus open group (p < 0.0001). Perioperative morbidity and mortality were similar in the two groups. Patients in the laparoscopic group were discharged a median of 2 days earlier (p < 0.0001). At a median follow-up over 50 months, no difference in hernia recurrence was detected between the groups. In laparoscopic group total institutional costs were lower (p = 0.02). At Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders, large wall defect (W3) and higher operative risk (ASA score 3-4) were associated with prolonged operative time, while midline hernia site was associated with increased hospital LOS. Open surgical approach was associated with prolongation of both operative time and LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach may be considered safely to all patients for incisional hernia repair, regardless of patients' characteristics (age, gender, BMI, ASA score, comorbidities) and size of the wall defect (W2-3), with the advantage of shorter operating time and hospital LOS that yields reduced total institutional costs. Patients with higher ASA score and large hernia defects are at risk of prolonged operative time, while an open approach is associated with longer duration of surgical operation and hospital LOS.

Laparoscopic versus open incisional and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair (LIVHR) is an alternative approach to conventional open incisional and ventral hernia repair (OIVHR). A consensus on outcomes of LIVHR when compared with OIVHR has not been reached.

METHODS

As the basis for the present study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing LIVHR and OIVHR.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 1,003 patients were enrolled. The incidences of wound infection were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than that in the open group (laparoscopic group 2.8 %, open group 16.2 %; RR = 0.19, 95 % CI 0.11-0.32; P < 0.00001). The rates of wound drainage were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group than that in the open group (laparoscopic group 2.6 %, open group 67.0 %; RR = 0.06, 95 % CI 0.03-0.09; P < 0.00001). However, the rates of bowel injury were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (laparoscopic group 4.3 %, open group 0.81 %; RR = 3.68, 95 % CI 1.56-8.67; P = 0.003). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidences of hernia recurrence, postoperative seroma, hematoma, bowel obstruction, bleeding, and reoperation. Descriptive analyses showed a shorter length of hospital stay in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair is a feasible and effective alternative to the open technique. It is associated with lower incidences of wound infection and shorter length of hospital stay. However, caution is required because it is associated with an increased risk of bowel injury compared with the open technique. Given the relatively short follow-up duration of trials included in the systematic review, trials with long-term follow-up are needed to compare the durability of laparoscopic and open repair.

Meta-analysis and systematic review of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for elective incisional hernia

CONTEXT

The utility of laparoscopic repair in the treatment of incisional hernia repair is still contentious.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of RCTs investigating the surgical and postsurgical outcomes of elective incisional hernia by open versus laparoscopic method.

DATA SOURCES

A search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published between January 1993 and September 2013 was performed using medical subject headings (MESH) "hernia," "incisional," "abdominal," "randomized/randomised controlled trial," "abdominal wall hernia," "laparoscopic repair," "open repair", "human" and "English".

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Prospective RCTs comparing surgical treatment of only incisional hernia (and not primary ventral hernias) using open and laparoscopic methods were selected.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Data extraction and critical appraisal were carried out independently by two authors (AA and MAM) using predefined data fields. The outcome variables analyzed included (a) hernia diameter; (b) operative time; (c) length of hospital stay; (d) overall complication rate; (e) bowel complications; (f) reoperation; (g) wound infection; (h) wound hematoma or seroma; (i) time to oral intake; (j) back to work; (k) recurrence rate; and (l) postoperative neuralgia. These outcomes were unanimously decided to be important since they influence the practical and surgical approach towards hernia management within hospitals and institutions. The quality of RCTs was assessed using Jadad's scoring system. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both binary and continuous data. Heterogeneity amongst the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran Q statistic and I (2) index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Sufficient data were available for the analysis of twelve clinically relevant outcomes. Statistically significant reduction in bowel complications was noted with open surgery compared to the laparoscopic repair in five studies (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.15, 5.72, p = 0.02). Comparable effects were noted for other variables which include hernia diameter (SMD -0.27, 95 % CI -0.77, 0.23, p = 0.29), operative time (SMD -0.08, 95 % CI -4.46, 4.30, p = 0.97), overall complications (OR -1.07, 95 % CI -0.33, 3.42, p = 0.91), wound infection (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.09, 2.67, p = 0.41), wound hematoma or seroma (OR 1.54, 95 % CI 0.58, 4.09, p = 0.38), reoperation rate (OR -0.32, 95 % CI 0.07, 1.43, p = 0.14), time to oral intake (SMD -0.16, 95 % CI -1.97, 2.28, p = 0.89), length of hospital stay (SMD -0.83, 95 % CI -2.22, 0.56, p = 0.24), back to work (SMD -3.14, 95 % CI -8.92, 2.64, p = 0.29), recurrence rate (OR 1.41, 95 % CI 0.81, 2.46, p = 0.23), and postoperative neuralgia (OR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.16, 1.46, p = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of our meta-analysis, we conclude that laparoscopic and open repair of incisional hernia is comparable. A larger randomized controlled multicenter trial with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and standardized techniques for both repairs is required to demonstrate the superiority of one technique over the other.

Laparoscopic repair reduces incidence of surgical site infections for all ventral hernias

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias remains incompletely defined. We hypothesize that laparoscopy, compared to open repair with mesh, decreases surgical site infection (SSI) for all ventral hernia types.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were reviewed to identify studies evaluating outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair with mesh of ventral hernias and divided into groups (primary or incisional). Studies with high risk of bias were excluded. Primary outcomes of interest were recurrence and SSI. Fixed effects model was used unless significant heterogeneity, assessed with the Higgins I square (I(2)), was encountered.

RESULTS

There were 5 and 15 studies for primary and incisional cohorts. No difference was seen in recurrence between laparoscopic and open repair in the two hernia groups. SSI was more common with open repair in both hernia groups: primary (OR 4.17, 95%CI [2.03-8.55]) and incisional (OR 5.16, 95%CI [2.79-9.57]).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair, compared to open repair with mesh, decreases rates of SSI in all types of ventral hernias with no difference in recurrence. These data suggest that laparoscopic approach may be the treatment of choice for all types of ventral hernias.

Short-term outcomes for open and laparoscopic midline incisional hernia repair: a randomized multicenter controlled trial: the ProLOVE (prospective randomized trial on open versus laparoscopic operation of ventral eventrations) trial

OBJECTIVE

: The aim of the trial was to compare laparoscopic technique with open technique regarding short-term pain, quality of life (QoL), recovery, and complications.

BACKGROUND

: Laparoscopic and open techniques for incisional hernia repair are recognized treatment options with pros and cons.

METHODS

: Patients from 7 centers with a midline incisional hernia of a maximum width of 10 cm were randomized to either laparoscopic (LR) or open sublay (OR) mesh repair. Primary end point was pain at 3 weeks, measured as the bodily pain subscale of Short Form-36 (SF-36). Secondary end points were complications registered by type and severity (the Clavien-Dindo classification), movement restrictions, fatigue, time to full recovery, and QoL up to 8 weeks.

RESULTS

: Patients were recruited between October 2005 and November 2009. Of 157 randomized patients, 133 received intervention: 64 LR and 69 OR. Measurements of pain did not differ, nor did movement restriction and postoperative fatigue. SF-36 subscales favored the LR group: physical function (P < 0.001), role physical (P < 0.012), mental health (P < 0.022), and physical composite score (P < 0.009). Surgical site infections were 17 in the OR group compared with 1 in the LR group (P < 0.001). The severity of complications did not differ between the groups (P < 0.213).

CONCLUSIONS

: Postoperative pain or recovery at 3 weeks after repair of midline incisional hernias does not differ between LR and OR, but the LR results in better physical function and less surgical site infections than the OR does. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00472537).

Postoperative surgical site infections after ventral/incisional hernia repair: a comparison of open and laparoscopic outcomes

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs), operative times (OTs), and length of hospital stay (LOS) after open and laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair (VIHR) using multicenter, prospectively collected data.

METHODS

The incidence of postoperative SSIs, OTs, and LOS was determined for cases of VIHR in the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database in 2009 and 2010. Open and laparoscopic techniques were compared using a propensity score model to adjust for differences in patient demographics, characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory values.

RESULTS

A total of 26,766 cases met the inclusion criteria; 21,463 cases were open procedures (reducible, n = 15,520 [72 %]; incarcerated/strangulated, n = 5,943 [28 %]), and 5,303 cases were laparoscopic procedures (reducible, n = 3,883 [73 %]; incarcerated/strangulated, n = 1,420 [27 %]). Propensity score adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were significantly different between open and laparoscopic VIHR for reducible and incarcerated/strangulated hernias with regard to superficial SSI (OR 5.5, p < 0.01 and OR 3.1, p < 0.01, respectively), deep SSI (OR 6.9, p < 0.01, and OR 8.0, p < 0.01, respectively) and wound disruption (OR 4.6, p < 0.01 and OR 9.3, p = 0.03, respectively). The risk for organ/space SSI was significantly greater for open operations among reducible hernias (OR 1.9, p = 0.02), but there was no significant difference between the open and laparoscopic repair groups for incarcerated/strangulated hernias (OR 0.8, p = 0.41). The OT was significantly longer for laparoscopic procedures, both for reducible (98.5 vs. 84.9 min, p < 0.01) and incarcerated/strangulated hernias (96.4 vs. 81.2 min, p < 0.01). LOS (mean, 95 % confidence interval) was significantly longer for open repairs for both reducible (open = 2.79, 2.59-3.00; laparoscopic = 2.39, 2.20-2.60; p < 0.01) and incarcerated/strangulated (open = 2.64, 2.55-2.73; laparoscopic = 2.17, 2.02-2.33; p < 0.01) hernias.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic VIHR for reducible and incarcerated/strangulated hernias is associated with shorter LOS and decreased risk for superficial SSI, deep SSI, and wound disruption, but longer OTs when compared to open repair.

Laparoscopic versus open hernia repair: outcomes and sociodemographic utilization results from the nationwide inpatient sample

INTRODUCTION

The differences and advantages of laparoscopic (LVHR) and open ventral hernia repair (OVHR) have been debated since laparoscopic hernia repair was first described. The purpose of this study is to compare LVHR and OVHR with mesh in the United States using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS).

METHODS

The NIS, a representative sample of approximately 20% of all inpatient encounters in the United States, was queried for all ventral hernia repairs with graft or prosthesis in 2009 using ICD-9-CM codes. The patients were stratified into LVHR and OVHR groups. Sociodemographic data, comorbidities, complications, and outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 18,223 cases were documented in the NIS sample after inclusion and exclusion criteria were met. LVHR was performed in 27.6% of cases. There were no statistically significant differences in gender or mean income by zip code of residence. Mean age (58.8 years in open group vs. 58.1 years, p = 0.014) and mean Charlson score (0.97 vs. 0.77, p < 0.0001) differed significantly between groups. OVHR more often was associated with emergent admissions (21.7 vs. 15.2%, p < 0.0001). There were significant differences comparing outcomes between groups: complication rate (OVHR: 8.24 vs. LVHR: 3.97%, p < 0.0001), average length of stay (5.2 vs. 3.5 days, p < 0.0001), total charge ($45,708 vs. $35,947, p < 0.0001), frequency of routine discharge (80.8 vs. 91.1%, p < 0.0001), and mortality rate (0.88 vs. 0.36%, p = 0.0002). After controlling for confounding variables with multivariate regression, all outcomes remained significant between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who have undergone LVHR with mesh had fewer complications, shorter length of stay, lower hospital charges, more frequent routine discharge, and decreased mortality compared with those who received open repair. Patient comorbidities, selection bias, and emergency operations may limit the number of patients who receive laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Regionalization studies may better illuminate the low rates of laparoscopic surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair

BACKGROUND

There are many different techniques currently in use for ventral and incisional hernia repair. Laparoscopic techniques have become more common in recent years, although the evidence is sparse.

OBJECTIVES

We compared laparoscopic with open repair in patients with (primary) ventral or incisional hernia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, metaRegister of Controlled Trials. The last searches were conducted in July 2010. In addition, congress abstracts were searched by hand.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled studies (RCTs), which compared the two techniques in patients with ventral or incisional hernia. Studies were included irrespective of language, publication status, or sample size. We did not include quasi-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. Meta-analytic results are expressed as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs with a total number of 880 patients suffering primarily from primary ventral or incisional hernia. No trials were identified on umbilical or parastomal hernia. The recurrence rate was not different between laparoscopic and open surgery (RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.62 to 2.38; I(2) = 0%), but patients were followed up for less than two years in half of the trials. Results on operative time were too heterogeneous to be pooled. The risk of intraoperative enterotomy was slightly higher in laparoscopic hernia repair (Peto OR 2.33; 95% CI 0.53 to 10.35), but this result stems from only 7 cases with bowel lesion (5 vs. 2). The most clear and consistent result was that laparoscopic surgery reduced the risk of wound infection (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.46; I(2)= 0%). Laparoscopic surgery shortened hospital stay significantly in 6 out of 9 trials, but again data were heterogeneous. Based on a small number of trials, it was not possible to detect any difference in pain intensity, both in the short- and long-term evaluation. Laparoscopic repair apparently led to much higher in-hospital costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The short-term results of laparoscopic repair in ventral hernia are promising. In spite of the risks of adhesiolysis, the technique is safe. Nevertheless, long-term follow-up is needed in order to elucidate whether laparoscopic repair of ventral/incisional hernia is efficacious.

A hybrid technique for recurrent incisional hernia repair

PURPOSE

The aim of this technical report is to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a hybrid technique for recurrent incisional hernia repair, which combines the conventional and laparoscopic approaches.

METHODS

Six patients suffering from recurrent and complicated incisional hernias underwent a hybrid technique for their repair. The open part of the operation ensured extensive and safe adhesiolysis, reduction of the hernia content into the peritoneal cavity, and proper placement of the bowel loops into the peritoneal cavity, minimizing the risk of bowel perforation. For the laparoscopic part of the procedure, intraperitoneal (underlay) e-PTFE mesh placement, of the appropriate size covering the actual hernia size and the scar edges for at least 3 cm, was laparoscopically fixated by transfascial stay stitches, allowing stretch of the mesh on the anterior abdominal wall, probably avoiding the mesh deformation in the future.

RESULTS

The overall size of the fascial defect was calculated between 116 and 187 cm, the size of the mesh used ranged from 308 to 468 cm, the total operative time ranged from 128 to 207 minutes and within a maximum follow-up period of 12 months, all patients are asymptomatic without any evidence of hernia recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The hybrid technique is safe in cases of recurrent or complicated or difficult incisional hernias. A longer follow-up period is required to estimating the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the method.

Laparoscopic repair of primary versus incisional ventral hernias: time to recognize the differences?

PURPOSE

To elucidate the differences in the pathology of incisional and primary ventral hernias and the outcomes of their laparoscopic repair.

METHODS

An operating room database of all laparoscopic ventral hernias performed between 2001 and 2009 was analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into two main groups: Group 1 (incisional hernias) and Group 2 (primary hernias). All P-values < 0.05 were considered to be significant.

RESULTS

There were 121 patients in Group 1 (mean age: 60.35 years) and 100 patients in Group 2 (mean age: 51.94 years). There was a significantly higher percentage of females in Group 1 (70 vs. 28%, P < 0.0001). There were significantly more complex hernias (defined as multiple points of weakness on the anterior abdominal wall) in Group 1 (37 vs. 10%, P < 0.0001). A total of 89% of patients required lysis of adhesions in Group 1 as compared with 73% in Group 2 (P = 0.007). There was a significantly higher percentage of conversions in Group 1 (9%) compared with Group 2 (2%, P = 0.02). The mean mesh size was significantly larger in Group 1 (243.22 vs. 131.46 cm(2)). The mean length of procedure (LOP) was significantly longer in Group 1 (113.94 min) as compared with Group 2 (70.96 min). The overall morbidity rate was not significantly different between the two groups (23 vs. 16%). The mean length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer for Group 1 (2.2 vs. 0.75 days, P < 0.0001). Finally, 22.3% of the patients in Group 1 were discharged on the same day as compared with 59% of the patients in Group 2 (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The LOP and LOS are longer after the laparoscopic repair of incisional than for primary ventral hernias. This disparity should be kept in mind when counseling patients and while designing trials investigating laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs (LVHRs).

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open and laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair with mesh

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair has been reported in a number of small trials to have equivalent or superior outcomes to open repair.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open incisional or ventral hernia repair with mesh that included data on effectiveness and safety were included in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference between groups in hernia recurrence rates (relative risk 1.02 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.41 to 2.54)). Duration of surgery varied. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopic repair in six of the included studies; the longest mean stay was 5.7 days for laparoscopic and 10 days for open surgery. Laparoscopic hernia repair was associated with fewer wound infections (relative risk 0.22 (95 per cent c.i. 0.09 to 0.54)), and a trend toward fewer haemorrhagic complications and infections requiring mesh removal.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair of ventral and incisional hernia is at least as effective, if not superior to, the open approach in a number of outcomes.

Open suture versus mesh repair of primary incisional hernias: a cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite 100,000 ventral hernia repairs (VHR) being performed annually, no gold standard for the technique exists. Mesh has been shown to decrease recurrence rates, yet, concerns of increased complications and costs prevent its systematic use. We examined the cost-effectiveness of open suture (OS) versus open mesh (OM) in primary VHR.

METHODS

A decision analysis model from the payer's perspective comparing OS to OM was constructed for calculating the total costs and cost-effectiveness. Probabilities for complications and outcomes were derived from the literature. The costs represented institutional fixed costs. The outcome measure of effectiveness was recurrence. One-way sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic analysis using Monte Carlo simulation were performed.

RESULTS

OS was associated with a total cost of $16,355 (+/-6,041) per repair, while OM was $16,947 (+/-7,252). At 3-year follow-up, OM was the more effective treatment with 73.8% being recurrence-free, compared with 56.3% in the OS group. The incremental cost to prevent one recurrence by the placement of mesh was $1,878. OM became the less effective treatment strategy when the infection rate exceeded 35%. At a willingness to pay level of $5,500, OM was the more cost-effective treatment strategy.

CONCLUSION

In subjects without contraindication to mesh placement, OM repair is the more effective surgical treatment for VHR, with a lower risk of recurrence at a small cost to the payer.

Open randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a common complication following abdominal surgery. Although the use of prosthetics has decreased recurrence rates, the standard open approach is still unsatisfactory. Laparoscopic techniques are an attempt to provide similar outcomes with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

METHODS

Open randomized controlled clinical trial with follow-up at 1, 2, 3, 7, and 15 days, and 1, 3, and 12 months from hernia repair. The study was carried out in the surgery departments of three general hospitals of the Valencia Health Agency.

OBJECTIVES

To compare laparoscopic with anterior open repair using health-related quality of life outcomes as main endpoints.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients with incisional hernia were randomly allocated to an open group (OG) (n = 39) or to a laparoscopic group (LG) (n = 45). Seventy-four patients completed 1-year follow up. Mean length of stay and time to oral intake were similar between groups. Operative time was 32 min longer in the LG (p < 0.001). Conversion rate was 11%. The local complication rate was superior in the LG (33.3% versus 5.2%) (p < 0.001). Recurrence rate at 1 year (7.9% versus 9.7%) was similar in the two groups. There were no significant differences in the pain scores or the EQ5D tariffs between the two groups during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair does not seem to be a better procedure than the open anterior technique in terms of operative time, hospitalization, complications, pain or quality of life.

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair may be an alternative to open mesh repair as it avoids a large abdominal incision, and thus potentially reduces pain and hospital stay. This review aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in comparison with open ventral hernia repair.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted, with comprehensive searches identifying six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and eight nonrandomised comparative studies.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic approach may have a lower recurrence rate than the open approach and required a shorter hospital stay. Five RCTs (Barbaros et al., Hernia 11:51-56, 2007; Misra et al., Surg Endosc 20:1839-1845, 2006; Navarra et al., Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:86-90, 2007; Moreno-Egea et al., Arch Surg 137:266-1268, 2002; Carbajo et al., Surg Endosc 13:250-252, 1999) reported no conversion (0%) to open surgery, and four nonrandomised studies reported conversions to open surgery ranging from 0% to 14%. Open approach complications generally were wound related, whereas the laparoscopic approach reported both wound- and procedure-related complications and these appeared to be less frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, the relative safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach in comparison with the open approach remains uncertain. The laparoscopic approach may be more suitable for straightforward hernias, with open repair reserved for the more complex hernias. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair appears to be an acceptable alternative that can be offered by surgeons proficient in advanced laparoscopic techniques.

Laparoscopic management of incisional hernias > or = 15 cm in diameter

BACKGROUND

Despite good results in terms of safety and minimal recurrence ensured by laparoscopy in the management of incisional hernias, the use of minimally invasive techniques for large incisional wall defects is still controversial.

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2008 as many as 36 patients with abdominal wall defects > or = 15 cm were managed laparoscopically in our institution. The wall defects were > or = 20 cm in eight cases. The diameter of parietal defects was measured from within the peritoneal cavity. None had loss of domain. Body mass index (BMI) for 18 patients was > or = 30 kg/m(2).

RESULTS

The mean duration of operations was 195 +/- 28 min (range 75-540). One patient needed conversion for ileal injury and massive adhesions. Post-operative complications occurred in nine patients; there were six surgical complications. Morbidity in obese and non-obese patients was not statistically different (p > 0.05). There was no postoperative death. Mean hospital stay was 4.97 +/- 3.4 days (range 2-18). Mean follow up was 28 months (range 2-68) and only one hernia recurrence was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimum-access procedures can provide good results in the repair of giant incisional hernia. Obesity is not a contraindication to laparoscopic repair. Further studies are expected to confirm our promising results.

Laparoscopic versus open repair of incisional/ventral hernia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this article is to analyze laparoscopic versus open repair of incisional/ventral hernia (IVH).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to analyze clinical trials on IVH.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials involving a total of 366 patients were analyzed. There were 183 patients in each group. Open repair of IVH was associated with significantly higher complication rates and longer hospital stays than laparoscopic repair. There was also some evidence that surgical times may be longer for open repair of IVH. However, statistically there was no difference in wound pain or recurrence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair of IVH is safe, with fewer complications and shorter hospital stays, and possibly a shorter surgical time. However, postoperative pain and recurrence rates are similar for both techniques. Hence, the laparoscopic approach may be considered for IVH repair if technically feasible, but more trials with longer follow-up evaluations are required to strengthen the evidence.

Laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia: Outcomes of 100 consecutive cases comprising 25 wall defects larger than 15 cm

BACKGROUND

Minimal access surgery for incisional hernia repair is still debated, especially for large and giant wall defects. This study was undertaken to analyze the results of the use of the laparoscopic technique in incisional hernias smaller and larger than 15 cm of diameter.

METHOD

From 2002 to 2007 a total of 100 patients with incisional hernia were operated on by laparoscopy and were included in this study. As much as 38 patients were obese, with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m(2). The mean follow-up span was 24 months (range = 2-58). The fascial defect was recurrent in 19 patients, in 13 after previous repair with mesh and in 6 after repair without mesh. The wall defect was larger than 15 cm in 25 patients and in 6 of them it was 20 cm or larger as measured from within the peritoneal cavity.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was 152 +/- 25 min (range = 45-275), and for defects larger than 15 cm it was 205 +/- 101 min (range = 85-540). Two patients with massive adhesions needed conversion to open surgery, one after an intraoperative injury of an intestinal loop. Postoperative complications occurred in 23 patients; local complications were 10. Pulmonary embolism caused death in one obese patient. Morbidity and hospital stay were similar in obese and nonobese patients and the differences were not statistically relevant (p > 0.05). The outcomes in patients with wall defects larger than 15 cm showed no significant difference with outcomes of the remaining patients with smaller defects (p > 0.05). Recurrence occurred in three cases, and in one case local infection led to removal of the mesh.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal access procedures can provide good results in the repair of incisional hernia, even when the diameter is larger than 15 cm. Obesity is not a contraindication to laparoscopic repair. Further studies are expected to confirm these promising results.