Should simultaneous stoma closure and incisional hernia repair be avoided?

Component separation repair of incisional hernia: evolution of practice and review of long-term outcomes in a single center

PURPOSE

To review the long-term outcomes of complex abdominal wall reconstruction using anterior and posterior component separation (CS) techniques in our center.

METHODS

This was a descriptive analytical study. Analysis of data from a prospectively collected database of patients who had undergone Component Separation (CS) repair of incisional hernias was performed. Two techniques were used. Anterior component separation (ACS) and posterior component separation with transversus abdominis release (PCS/TAR). Follow-up was clinical review at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months with direct access telephone review thereafter. Long-term outcome data was obtained from electronic records and based on either clinical or CT assessment. Minimum physical follow-up was 6 months for all patients.

RESULTS

89 patients with large incisional hernias underwent CS repair. 29 patients had ACS while 60 underwent PCS/TAR. Mean follow-up was 60 months (range 6-140 months) in the ACS group and 20 months (range 6-72 months) in the PCS group. Twenty-five patients (28%) had simultaneous major procedures including 21 intestinal anastomoses. Twenty-six (29%) of patients had associated stomas. Twenty-seven (30.3%) of the patients had undergone previous hernia repairs. Seromas occurred in 24 (26.97%) patients. Wound infections were more common after ACS. There have been 10 (11.2%) recurrences to date.

CONCLUSION

Component separation repair techniques result in good long-term outcomes with acceptable complication rates. They can be performed simultaneously with gastrointestinal procedures with low morbidity. Appropriate patient selection and use of appropriate mesh are important.

Repair of umbilical hernias concomitant to other procedures is safe: a propensity score-matched database study

BACKGROUND

Repair of an umbilical hernia is most often considered the less important condition when concomitant with other abdominal surgery. Despite this, the evidence for a concomitant umbilical hernia repair is sparse. The aim of this nationwide cohort study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of primary umbilical hernia repair and umbilical hernia repair concomitant with other abdominal surgery.

METHOD

Data from the Danish Hernia Database and the National Patients Registry from January 2007 to December 2018 was merged, resulting in identification of patients receiving umbilical hernia concomitant to another abdominal surgery (laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and laparoscopic appendectomy). This group was propensity score matched with patients undergoing umbilical hernia repair as a primary procedure. Outcome data included 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation, and operation for recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 3365 primary umbilical hernia repairs and 2418 umbilical hernia repairs concomitant to other abdominal surgery were included. Readmission (10.5%, 255/2418) and reoperation (3.8%, 93/2418) rates within 90 days were decreased for umbilical hernia repairs concomitant to other abdominal surgery, compared with primary umbilical hernia repairs (22.7%, 765/3365) and (10.5%, 255/3365), P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively. The rate of operation for recurrence was significantly increased for primary repairs (4.2%, 141/3365), compared with repairs concomitant to other abdominal surgery (3.2%, 77/2418), P = 0.014.

CONCLUSION

Outcome in umbilical hernia repair performed concomitant to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, elective or emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy, or laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to umbilical hernia repair without concomitant surgery.

Staged abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of complex gastrointestinal reconstruction

PURPOSE

Literature on one- versus two-staged abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) with complex gastrointestinal reconstruction (GIR) is limited to single-arm case series with a focus on patients who complete all planned stages. Herein, we describe our experience with both one- and two-staged approaches to AWR/GIR, with attention to those who did not complete both intended stages.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted to identify patients who underwent a one- or two-stage approach to GIR/AWR from 2013 to 2020. The one-stage approach included GIR and definitive sublay mesh herniorrhaphy. The two-stage approach included Stage 1 (S1)-GIR and non-definitive herniorrhaphy and Stage 2 (S2)-definitive sublay mesh herniorrhaphy.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients underwent GIR/AWR: 20 (37.0%) underwent a planned 1-stage operation while 34 (63.0%) underwent S1 of a planned 2-stage approach. Patients assigned to the 2-stage approach were more likely to be smokers, have a history of mesh infection, have an enterocutaneous fistula, and a contaminated wound class (p<0.05). Of the 34 patients who underwent S1, 12 (35.3%) completed S2 during the mean follow-up period of 44 months while 22 (64.7%) did not complete S2. Of these, 10 (45.5%) developed hernia recurrence but did not undergo S2 secondary to elective nonoperative management (40%), pending preoperative optimization (30%), additional complex GIR (10%), hernia-related incarceration requiring emergent surgery (10%), or unrelated death (10%). No differences in outcome including SSI, SSO, readmission, and recurrence were noted between the 12 patients who completed the two-stage approach and the 20 patients who completed a one-stage approach, despite increased risk factors for complications in the 2-stage group (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Planned two-stage operations for GIR/AWR may distribute operative complexity and post-operative morbidity into separate surgical interventions. However, many patients may never undergo the intended definitive S2 herniorrhaphy. Future evaluation of 1- versus 2-stage GIR/AWR is needed to clarify indications for each approach. This work must also consider the frequent deviations from intended clinical course demonstrated in this study.

Ventral hernia repair with concurrent intra-abdominal surgery: Results from an eleven-year population-based cohort in Sweden

BACKGROUND

One remaining question in ventral hernia repair is whether to perform concurrent abdominal surgery or plan two-stage procedures. The aim was to explore the risk for reoperation and mortality due to surgical complication during index admission.

METHOD

Eleven-year data were retrieved from the National Patient Register and 68,058 primary surgical admissions were included, divided into minor and major hernia surgery and concurrent abdominal surgery. Results were evaluated by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The risk for reoperation during index admission was higher for patients with concurrent surgery. Major hernia surgery and major concurrent surgery had an OR 37.9 compared to major hernia surgery only. Mortality rate within 30 days increased, OR 9.32. The combined risk for serious adverse event was accumulative.

CONCLUSION

These results stress the importance of critically evaluating needs for and planning of concurrent abdominal surgery during ventral hernia repair. Reoperation rate was a valid and useful outcome variable.

Single-staged retromuscular abdominal wall reconstruction with mesh at the time of ostomy reversal: are we crossing the line? An ACHQC Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The most appropriate method of reconstructing the abdominal wall at the site of a simultaneous stoma takedown is controversial. The contaminated field, concomitant GI procedure being performed and presence of a hernia all complicate decision-making. We sought to describe the surgical approaches, mesh type and outcomes of concomitant abdominal wall reconstruction during stoma takedown in a large hernia registry.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

All patients who underwent stoma takedown with simultaneous hernia repair with retromuscular mesh placement from January 2014 to May 2022 were identified within the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC). Patients were stratified by mesh type including permanent synthetic (PS), resorbable synthetic (RS) and biologic mesh. Association of mesh type with 30-day wound events and other complications and 1-year outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 368 patients who met inclusion criteria. Eighty-nine patients had ileostomies, 276 colostomies and 3 had both. Two hundred and seventy-nine (75.8%) patients received PS mesh, 46 (12.5%) biologic, and 43 (11.7%) RS. Seventy percent (259/368) had a parastomal hernia, 75% (285/368) had a midline incisional hernia, and 48% (178/368) had both. All groups had similar preoperative comorbidities and the majority had a transversus abdominus release. All mesh groups had similar thirty-day SSI (13.2-14.3%), SSO (10.5-17.8%) and SSOPI (7.9-14.1%), p = 0.6. Three patients with PS mesh developed infected synthetic mesh and one PS mesh required excision. Four patients with PS developed an enterocutaneous fistula. Of these, only one patient was recorded as having both an enterocutaneous fistula and mesh infection. Thirty-day reoperation and readmission were similar across all mesh groups. Recurrence at 1-year was similar between mesh groups. Quality of life measured using HerQLes scores were higher at one year compared to baseline in all groups indicating improvement in hernia-specific quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Early complication rates associated with simultaneous stoma takedown and abdominal wall reconstruction are significant, regardless of mesh type utilized. Concomitant surgery should be weighed heavily and tailored to individual patients.

Gastrointestinal procedures and anastomoses can be safely performed during complex abdominal wall reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

The literature regarding combined abdominal wall reconstruction and gastrointestinal surgery is limited and largely suggests staged procedures due to a reported increased incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs), hernia recurrence and anastomotic leak, but this exposes patients to the risks of two substantial procedures. This study evaluates the outcomes of single-stage GI surgery with complex abdominal wall reconstructions (CAWR) by a single surgeon.

METHODS

Analysis of 10 years of a prospectively maintained single surgeon CAWR database compared those who had CAWR-alone with those having concomitant gastrointestinal surgery (CAWR-GI) such as stoma reversal or bowel resection but excluding cholecystectomy, gynaecological surgery and adhesiolysis alone. Groups were compared using the paired t test (continuous data) and Fisher's exact test (nominal data).

RESULTS

Overall, 62 elective cases (42 CAWR-alone vs. 20 CAWR-GI) were analysed. Baseline demographics (age, BMI, co-morbidities, smoking status and hernia size) showed no differences; CAWR-GI mean operating time was significantly longer compared to the CAWR-alone group (5.4 h vs. 4.1 h) with an increased incidence of post-operative ileus in the intestinal group (40% vs. 11.9%, p < 0.05). Post-operative complications were common (chest infection (32.3%) and SSI (41.9%)), but similar between groups. There were no anastomotic leaks, and the hernia recurrence rate at almost 4 years median follow-up was 10% in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Performing simultaneous intestinal surgery during complex abdominal wall repair can be performed safely without increasing the risk of hernia recurrence, mesh infections or anastomotic leak. A careful choice of mesh implant is required.

Inguinal Hernia Incarceration in the Setting of Postoperative Ileus

Postoperative ileus (POI) occurs after gastrointestinal and other intra-abdominal surgeries, and its incidence rate is reported to range between 10 and 30% following major abdominal surgery. Should ileus remain for several days or if symptoms worsen despite management, further investigation is warranted to consider other diagnoses such as small bowel obstruction (SBO), intra-abdominal abscess, or perforation. The etiology of postoperative obstructive symptoms can evolve during the postoperative course and many possible factors contribute to postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction. Prolonged POI may be a risk factor for hernia incarceration. We describe the case of a 72-year-old male with a history of perforated diverticulitis and Hartmann procedure status post-colostomy takedown complicated by prolonged POI for six days. Clinical workup revealed incarcerated inguinal hernia, which was treated with urgent inguinal hernia repair. Follow-up revealed resolution of gastrointestinal dysfunction within 48 hours of hernia repair.

Simultaneous Treatment of Complex Incisional Hernia and Stoma Reversal

Purpose: The simultaneous repair of incisional hernias (IH) and the reconstruction of the intestinal transit may pose a challenge for many surgeons. Collaboration between units specialized in abdominal wall and colorectal surgery can favor simultaneous treatment. Methods: Descriptive study of patients undergoing simultaneous surgery of complex IH repair and intestinal transit reconstruction from the start of treatment in a joint team. All interventions were performed electively and with the collaboration of surgeons experts in abdominal wall and colorectal surgery. Results: 23 patients are included. 11 end colostomies, 1 loop colostomy, 6 end ileostomies and 5 loop ileostomies. Seven (30%) patients presented with a medial laparotomy incisional hernia, 3 (13%) with a parastomal incisional hernia, and 13 (56%) with a medial and parastomal incisional hernia. Closure of the hernial defect was achieved in 100% of cases, and reconstruction of the intestinal tract was achieved in 22 (95%). Component separation was required in 17 patients (74%), which were 11 (48%) posterior and 6 (26%) anterior. In-hospital morbidity was 9%, and only two patients presented Clavien-Dindo morbidity > III when requiring reoperation, one due to hemorrhage of the surgical bed and another due to dehiscence of the coloproctostomy. The mean follow-up was 11 months, with 20 (87%) patients having no complications. Mesh had to be removed in one patient with anastomotic dehiscence, no mesh had to be removed due to surgical site infection.