The incidence of extraction site incisional hernia after minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Incisional hernia incidence following laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Incisional hernias (IH) are a frequent complication following open surgery (OP). While laparoscopic (LAP) surgery is designed to enhance patient recovery through smaller incisions, contemporary quantitative evidence supporting its efficacy in reducing IH rates (IHR) is sparse. This study aims to provide an overview of IHR following OP and LAP abdominal operations.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studies in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase from inception until May 2024 comparing OP approach to LAP and reported IH incidence as a postoperative complication. Exclusion criteria included studies involving patients aged ≤ 18 years, those lacking a control group, or those with a follow-up period of less than 12 months. Studies were stratified by procedure type and by fully laparoscopic (T-LAP) versus laparoscopic-assisted (LAP-A) approaches. Statistical analyses were performed using RStudio software. To address potential clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies, we applied the restricted maximum-likelihood estimator and random-effects models for outcome analysis.

RESULTS

8.754 studies were screened, and 72 studies were reviewed. From the initial screening, 28 studies involving 6,113 patients were included, of which 3,337 (54.6%) underwent LAP. Analysis revealed a significantly lower incidence of IH among patients who received LAP (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33-0.79). Subgroup analysis by surgery type indicated that bariatric (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.068-0.578) and fundoplication procedures (RR 0.1; 95%CI 0.018-0.545) were associated with a substantial reduction in IHR. Moreover, totally-laparoscopic (T-LAP) procedures showed a significant reduction in IHR (RR 0.26;95%CI 0.14-0.5), while LAP-A procedures failed to show the same benefit.

CONCLUSION

LAP surgery is associated with reduced IHR in abdominal operations, with the benefit being particularly notable amongst LAP-A, bariatric, and fundoplication procedures. These findings underscore the advantages of LAP in specific surgical contexts, emphasizing its potential to minimize postoperative complications such as IH. Further research focusing on comparing IHR on open versus LAP approaches is warranted.

STUDY REGISTRATION

A review protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024551280).

Postoperative Pain and Incisional Hernia of Specimen Extraction Sites for Minimally Invasive Rectal Cancer Surgery: Comparison of Periumbilical Midline Incision Versus Pfannenstiel Incision

Background: Recent studies indicate that minimally invasive surgery is widely accepted as the optimal procedure for colorectal cancer. However, the ideal location of the specimen extraction site remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the conventional periumbilical midline incision with the Pfannenstiel incision for specimen extraction during minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 76 patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (double-stapling technique anastomosis) for rectal cancer between January 2022 and June 2023. The postoperative short- and mid-term outcomes were compared between the periumbilical midline incision and Pfannenstiel incision groups. Results: The patients' backgrounds were comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the surgical outcomes or short-term postoperative complications. The Pfannenstiel incision demonstrated advantages, including reduced postoperative pain at rest and during movement, and a lower incidence of incisional hernia (p = 0.038). Conclusions: The Pfannenstiel incision is a safe and effective option associated with reduced postoperative pain and a lower risk of incisional hernia. Therefore, it can serve as a useful alternative for specimen extraction during minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery.

The sagitta in 3D reconstruction of linea alba on routine CT scans is predictive of postoperative burst abdomen

PURPOSE

Burst abdomen (BA) is a relevant complication after abdominal surgery that causes additional surgical procedures, prolonged hospital stays and long-term morbidity. Several underlying risk factors exist and have been characterized previously. Those risk factors consist of surgical and medical factors. Recently, CT-derived body composition is of rising interest and 3D reconstruction of the linea alba has been studied. The clinical significance of those parameters is not clear. We therefore performed an analysis of linea alba 3D reconstruction measurements and their prognostic significance on the development of BA.

METHODS

An institutional data base of patients with post operative wound infections was assembled. The subgroup of patients with BA was compared to controls. If the patients had complete preoperative abdominal CT scans, their images were further analyzed and 3D reconstruction of the linea alba was performed. Subsequently, lineal alba was measured at predetermined positions. Those values were evaluated as risk factors for postoperative BA.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients with BA and 32 controls were eligible for the analysis. We found body mass index-related significant differences as well as sex related differences in linea alba width. Furthermore, BA patients had a significantly wider linea alba and longer sagitta compared to controls. In the multivariate analysis of linea alba measurements and clinical parameters, the length of the sagitta was significantly associated with the risk of BA (OR 1.266; 95% CI 1.011-1.585; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In this study of 3D reconstruction of the linea alba from routine CT scans, we could show that a longer sagitta was associated with an increased risk of postoperative BA.

Robotic colorectal resections are associated with less postoperative pain, decreased opioid use, and earlier return to work as compared to the laparoscopic approach

While robotic and laparoscopic surgeries are both minimally invasive in nature, they are intrinsically different approaches and it is critical to understand outcome differences between the two. Studies evaluating pain outcomes and opioid requirement differences between the robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resections are conflicting and often underpowered. In this retrospective, cohort study, we compare postoperative opioid requirements, reported as morphine milligram equivalents (MME), postoperative average and highest pain scores across postoperative days (POD) 0-5, and return to work in patients who underwent robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal resections. The sample size was selected based on power calculations. Daily pain scores and MME were used as outcomes in linear mixed effect models with unstructured covariance between time points. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for imbalances. Patients in the robotic group required significantly less opioids as measured by MME on all postoperative days (p = 0.004), as well as lower average and highest daily pain scores for POD 0-5 (p = 0.02, and p = 0.006, respectively). In a linear mixed-effects model, robotic resections were associated with a decrease in average pain scores by 0.36 over time (p = 0.03) and 35 fewer MME requirements than the laparoscopic group (p = 0.0004). Patients in the robotic arm had earlier return to work (2.1 vs 3.8 days, p = 0.036). The robotic approach to colorectal resections is associated with significantly less postoperative pain, decreased opioid requirements, and earlier return to work when compared to laparoscopy, suggesting that the robotic platform provides important clinical advantages over the laparoscopic approach.

Occurrence and prevention of incisional hernia following laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Among minimally invasive surgical procedures, colorectal surgery is associated with a notably higher incidence of incisional hernia (IH), ranging from 1.7% to 24.3%. This complication poses a significant burden on the healthcare system annually, necessitating urgent attention from surgeons. In a study published in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Fan et al compared the incidence of IH among 1614 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with different extraction site locations and evaluated the risk factors associated with its occurrence. This editorial analyzes the current risk factors for IH after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, emphasizing the impact of obesity, surgical site infection, and the choice of incision location on its development. Furthermore, we summarize the currently available preventive measures for IH. Given the low surgical repair rate and high recurrence rate associated with IH, prevention deserves greater research and attention compared to treatment.

The enigma of incisional hernia prediction unraveled: external validation of a prognostic model in colorectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

Accurate prediction of hernia occurrence is vital for surgical decision-making and patient management, particularly in colorectal surgery patients. While a hernia prediction model has been developed, its performance in external populations remain to be investigated. This study aims to validate the existing model on an external dataset of patients who underwent colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The "Penn Hernia Calculator" model was externally validated using the Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART) data, a randomized trial comparing colorectal cancer surgery closure techniques. The data encompassed demographics, comorbidities, and surgical specifics. Patients without complete follow-up were omitted. Model performance was assessed using key metrics, including area under the curve (AUC-ROC and AUC-PR) and Brier score. Reporting followed the TRIPOD consensus.

RESULTS

An external international dataset consisting of 802 colorectal surgery patients were identified, of which 674 patients with up to 2 years follow-up were included. Average patient age was 68 years, with 63.8% male. The average BMI was 28.1. Prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and smoking were 15.7%, 16.3%, and 36.5%, respectively. Additionally, 7.9% of patients had a previous hernia. The most common operation types were low anterior resection (35.3%) and right hemicolectomy (34.4%). Hernia were observed in 24% of cases by 2-year follow-up. The external validation model revealed an AUC-ROC of 0.66, AUC-PR of 0.72, and a Brier score of 0.2.

CONCLUSION

The hernia prediction model demonstrated moderate performance in the external validation. Its potential generalizability, specifically in those undergoing colorectal surgery, may suggest utility in identifying and managing high-risk hernia candidates.

Incidence, Healthcare Resource Use and Costs Associated With Incisional Hernia Repair

Background: Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication of abdominal surgery affecting between 12.8% and 30% of patients. In spite of this, rates of IH repair remain low, at around 5% in the literature. We aimed to assess the rate of IH repair in the UK across surgical specialties and the cost burden associated with IH repair. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of patients undergoing abdominal surgery in England between 2012 and 2022 using the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. Index abdominal surgery was identified between March 2014 and March 2017. Diagnostic and surgical procedure codes were used to identify pre-operative risk factors, index surgeries, IH repair and healthcare contact. Healthcare resource use (HCRU) costs were derived for index surgery and all post-index, non-elective inpatient admissions and outpatient visits using Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes within HES. Results: Of 297,134 patients undergoing abdominal surgery, 5.1% (n = 15,138) subsequently underwent incisional hernia repair. By specialty, rates were higher in Colorectal (10.0%), followed by Hepatobiliary (8.2%), Transplant (6.8%), Urological (4.0%), Bariatric (3.5%), Vascular (3.2%) and Gynaecological (2.6%) surgery. Patients undergoing IH repair had more healthcare contacts, longer length of inpatient stays and more A+E visits vs. those with no IH repair post index surgery (83% ≥ 1 A+E visit vs. 69%), as well as higher rates of referral to mental health services (19.8% vs. 11.5%). IH repair was associated with an average HCRU cost of £23,148 compared to £12,321 in patients with no IH repair. Conclusion: Patients undergoing IH repair have a greater morbidity than those not undergoing repair, shown by higher HCRU and more healthcare contacts. Despite this, rates of surgery for IH are low, suggesting that most patients with hernias are not undergoing repair. Emphasis must be placed squarely on primary prevention, rather than cure.

Nationwide standardization of minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer and development and validation of a video-based competency assessment tool (the Right study)

BACKGROUND

Substantial variation exists when performing a minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) due to disparities in training, expertise and differences in implementation of innovations. This study aimed to achieve national consensus on an optimal and standardized MIRH technique for colon cancer and to develop and validate a video-based competency assessment tool (CAT) for MIRH.

METHOD

Statements covering all elements of MIRH were formulated. Subsequently, the Delphi technique was used to reach consensus on a standardized MIRH among 76 colorectal surgeons from 43 different centres. A CAT was developed based on the Delphi results. Nine surgeons assessed the same 12 unedited full-length videos using the CAT, allowing evaluation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

After three Delphi rounds, consensus (≥80% agreement) was achieved on 23 of the 24 statements. Consensus statements included the use of low intra-abdominal pressure, detailed anatomical outline how to perform complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation, the creation of an intracorporeal anastomosis, and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision using a wound protector. The CAT included seven consecutive steps to measure competency of the MIRH and showed high consistency among surgeons with an overall ICC of 0.923.

CONCLUSION

Nationwide consensus on a standardized and optimized technique of MIRH was reached. The CAT developed showed excellent interrater reliability. These achievements are crucial steps to an ongoing nationwide quality improvement project (the Right study).

Intracorporeal Versus Extracorporeal Colo-colic Anastomosis in Minimally-invasive Left Colectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The primary aim was to investigate the operative outcomes of intracorporeal (IA) and extracorporeal (EA) anastomosis in left-sided minimally-invasive colectomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies comparing operative outcomes and follow-up data of IA versus EA in minimally-invasive left colectomy. Studies that investigated recto-sigmoid resections using transanal circular staplers were excluded. Data from eligible studies were extracted, qualitatively assessed, and included in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 750 patients were included (IA n = 335 versus EA n = 415). IA was associated with significantly lower overall morbidity (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26-0.61, p < 0.0001) and less frequent surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.61, p = 0.002) as primary outcomes compared to EA. Of the secondary outcomes, length of incision (SMD -2.51, 95% CI -4.21 to -0.81, p = 0.004), time to first oral diet intake (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.22, p = 0. 0004) and time to first bowel movement (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.09, p = 0.01) were significantly in favor of IA, while operative time was significantly shorter in the EA group (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.59, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

IA proves to be a safe and feasible option as it demonstrates benefits in terms of lower overall morbidity, fewer rates of SSI, smaller incision length, and faster postoperative gastrointestinal recovery despite a longer operative time compared to EA.

Feasibility and safety of specimen extraction via an enlarged (U-Plus) skin bridge loop ileostomy: a single-center retrospective comparative study

Objective

To investigate the feasibility and safety of specimen extraction via an enlarged (U-Plus) skin bridge loop ileostomy.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 95 patients with rectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic low anterior rectal resection and skin bridge loop ileostomy between August 2018 and August 2022, including 44 patients with specimen extraction via an enlarged (U-Plus) skin bridge loop ileostomy (experimental group) and 51 patients with specimen extraction via an abdominal incision (control group). Following the application of propensity score matching (PSM), 34 pairs of data were successfully matched. Subsequently, a comparative analysis was conducted on the clinical data of the two groups.

Results

The experimental group exhibited significantly better outcomes than the control group in various aspects. Specifically, the experimental group had lower values for average operative time (P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (P < 0.001), median length of visible incision after surgery (P < 0.001), median VAS pain score on the first day after surgery (P = 0.015), and average postoperative hospitalization (P = 0.001). There was no statistical significance observed in the incidence of stoma-related complications in both groups (P > 0.05). Within each group, the stoma-QOL scores before stoma closure surgery were significantly higher than those at one month and two months after the surgery, with statistical significance (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Specimen extraction via a U-Plus skin bridge loop ileostomy is a safe and feasible method that shortens operation time and postoperative visual incision length, decreases estimated blood loss, and reduces patient postoperative pain compared with specimen extraction via an abdominal incision.

National implementation of an optimal standardised technique for right-sided colon cancer: protocol of an interventional sequential cohort study (Right study)

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive right hemicolectomy (MIRH) is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with right-sided colon cancer. This operation has evolved during recent decades, with many innovations and improvements but this has also resulted in high variability of uptake with subsequent substantial variableness. The aim of this ongoing study is to identify current surgical variations, determine the most optimal and standardised MIRH and nationally train and implement that technique to improve short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes.

METHODS

The Right study is a national multicentre prospective interventional sequential cohort study. Firstly, current local practice was evaluated. Subsequently, a standardised surgical technique for right-sided colon cancer was determined using the Delphi consensus method, and this procedure was trained during hands-on courses. The standardised MIRH will be implemented with proctoring (implementation cohort), after which the performance will be monitored (consolidation cohort). Patients who will receive a minimally invasive (extended) right hemicolectomy for cT1-3N0-2M0 colon cancer will be included. The primary outcome is patient safety reflected in the 90-day overall complication rate according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Secondary outcomes will include intraoperative complications, 90-day mortality rate, number of resected tumour-positive lymph nodes, completeness of mesocolic excision, surgical quality score, locoregional and distant recurrence and 5-year overall survival. A total number of 1095 patients (365 per cohort) will be included.

DISCUSSION

The Right study is designed to safely implement the best surgical practice concerning patients with right-sided colon cancer aiming to standardise and improve the surgical quality of MIRH at a national level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04889456, May 2021.

Retrospective study of an incisional hernia after laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to examine the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LC) using regulated computed tomography (CT) images at intervals every 6 months.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined the diagnosis of IH in patients who underwent LC for colorectal cancer at Kansai Medical University Hospital from January 2014 to August 2018. The diagnosis of IH was defined as loss of continuity of the fascia in the axial CT images.

RESULTS

470 patients were included in the analysis. IH was diagnosed in 47 cases at 1 year after LC. The IH size was 7.8 cm2 [1.3-55.6]. In total, 38 patients with IH underwent CT examination 6 months after LC, and 37 were already diagnosed with IH. The IH size was 4.1 cm2 [0-58.9]. The IH size increased in 17 cases between 6 months and 1 year postoperatively, and in 1 case, a new IH occurred. 47%(18/38) of them continued to grow until 1 year after LC. A multivariate analysis was performed on the risk of IH occurrence. SSI was most significantly associated with IH occurrence (OR:5.28 [2.14-13.05], p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

IH occurred in 10% and 7.9% at 1 year and 6 months after LC. By examining CT images taken for the postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer, we were able to investigate the occurrence of IH in detail.

Robotic donor nephrectomy: optimizing outcomes beyond the limitations of laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

Robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) has emerged as a safe alternate to laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), offering improved visualization, instrument dexterity and ergonomics. There is still concern about how to safely transition from LDN to RDN.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 150 consecutive living donor operations (75 LDN and 75 RDN) at our center, comparing the first 75 RDN's with the last 75 LDN's performed prior to the initiation of the robotic transplant program. Operative times and complications were used as surrogates of efficiency and safety, respectively, to estimate the learning curve with RDN.

RESULTS

RDN was associated with a longer total operative time (RDN 182 vs LDN 144 min; P < 0.0001) but a significantly shorter post-operative length of stay (RDN 1.8 vs LDN 2.1 days; P = 0.0213). Donor complications and recipient outcomes were the same between both groups. Learning curve of RDN was estimated to be about 30 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

RDN is a safe alternate to LDN with acceptable donor morbidity and no negative impact on recipient outcomes even during the early part of the RDN learning curve. Surgeon preferences for the robotic approach compared to traditional laparoscopy will require further scrutiny to improve ergonomics and operative efficiency.

Role of the Pfannenstiel Incision in Robotic Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery

Studies remain limited on the role of the Pfannenstiel incision in minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery, especially robotic surgery. The role of various extraction sites in robotic HPB surgery should be understood. Herein, we describe the surgical techniques, outcomes, advantages, and disadvantages of the Pfannenstiel incision in robotic pancreatic surgery. Seventy patients underwent robotic pancreatectomy at our institution between September 2020 and October 2022. The Pfannenstiel incision was used for specimen retrieval in 55 patients. Advantages of the Pfannenstiel incision include less pain, cosmetic benefits, and a lower incidence of complications. Moreover, the specimen could be removed using the robotic system docked. However, all complex reconstructions should be performed intra-abdominally during robotic pancreatoduodenectomies. The incidence of mortality and postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B) was 0% and 9.1%, respectively. During the median follow-up (11.2 months) after surgery, complications at the Pfannenstiel incision site included surgical site infection (n = 1, 1.8%) and incisional hernia (n = 1, 1.8%). The Pfannenstiel incision can be a useful option for specimen retrieval in minimally invasive HPB surgery, according to the surgeon's preferences and the patient's condition.