Laparoscopic versus hybrid approach for treatment of incisional ventral hernia: a 5-10-year follow-up of the randomized controlled multicenter study

PURPOSE

In this long-term follow-up of a prospective, randomized, and multicenter study, we compare the results of a group receiving laparoscopic incisional ventral hernia repair using intraperitoneal onlay mesh (LG) to a group receiving a hybrid hernia repair where open closure of fascial defect was added to intraperitoneal mesh placement (HG).

METHODS

Originally, 193 patients with 2-7 cm incisional hernias were randomly assigned to either the LG or HG during the 30-month recruitment period in 2012 to 2015. Long-term follow-up was conducted 5-10 years after surgery to evaluate hernia recurrence rate and quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

In all, 65 patients in the LG and 60 in the HG completed the long-term follow-up with a median follow-up period of 87 months. Recurrent hernia was detected in 11 of 65 patients (16.9%) in the LG and 10 of 60 patients (16.7%) in the HG (p  >  0.9). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a recurrence rate approaching 20% in both groups, with similar curves. Three patients in the LG (4.6% and five patients in the HG (8.1%) had undergone re-operation due to recurrence (p  = 0.48). There was no difference in patient-reported QoL measured using the SF-36 questionnaire. Mean pain scores were similar between groups, mean numeric rating scale (NRS) 0 to 10 being 1.1 in the LG and 0.7 in the HG (p  = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

Fascial closure did not reduce hernia recurrence rate in this study population, even though it has been shown to be beneficial and recommended in surgery guidelines. In the long term, recurrence rate for both groups is similar.

P-070 SYNTHETIC MESH VERSUS BIOLOGICAL IMPLANT TO PREVENT INCISIONAL HERNIA AFTER LOOP-ILEOSTOMY CLOSURE: A RANDOMIZED FEASIBILITY TRIAL

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of synthetic mesh compared to a biological mesh in incisional hernia prevention after loop-ileostomy closure.

Material & Methods

Up to one third of patients experience incisional hernia after loop-ileostomy closure, justifying hernia prevention procedures. Although biological meshes have been widely used in contaminated surgical sites instead of synthetic ones due to complication concerns, previous data on the subject does not support this practice. A randomized, controlled, multi-center non-inferior feasibility trial was conducted from April 2018 – November 2021. Patients (n=102) were randomized 1:1 to receive either a light-weight synthetic polypropylene mesh (Parietene MacroTM, Medtronic) (SM) or a biological mesh (PermacolTM, Medtronic) (BM) to the retrorectus space at loop-ileostomy closure after anterior resection for rectal adenocarcinoma. The primary outcome was rate of surgical site infections (SSI) at 30-day follow-up.

Results

In total, 102 patients were randomized, of which 97 received the intended allocation. At 30-day follow-up, 94 patients (97%) were evaluated. Of patients in the SM group, 1/46 (2%) had SSI and in the BM group 2/48 (4%) had SSI (p>0.90). Uneventful wound healing was recorded in 38/46 (86%) and 43/48 (90%) patients in the SM and BM groups, respectively. One patient from each group underwent reoperation requiring mesh removal (p>0.90).

Conclusions

Both a synthetic mesh and biological mesh were safe in incisional hernia prevention after loop-ileostomy closure. Hernia prevention efficiency will be reported after long-term patient follow-ups.