Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) with fascial repair (IPOM-plus) for ventral and incisional hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Despite advancements in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) using the intraperitoneal onlay mesh technique (sIPOM), recurrence remains a common postoperative complication. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of defect closure (IPOM-plus) versus non-closure in ventral and incisional hernia repair. The aim is to determine which technique yields better outcomes in terms of reducing recurrence and complication rates.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from their inception until October 1, 2022, to identify all online English publications that compared the outcomes of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with and without fascia closure.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eleven cohort studies involving 1585 patients met the inclusion criteria. The IPOM-plus technique was found to reduce the recurrence of hernias (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.35, 0.76], p < 0.01), seroma (OR = 0.48, 95% CI [0.32, 0.71], p < 0.01), and mesh bulging (OR = 0.08, 95% CI [0.01, 0.42], p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that body mass index (BMI) (OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.29, 0.65], p < 0.0001), type of article (OR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.35, 0.76], p = 0.0008 < 0.01), geographical location (OR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.36, 0.82], p = 0.004 < 0.01), follow-up time (OR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.34, 0.73], p = 0.0004 < 0.01) had a significant influence on the postoperative recurrence of the IPOM-plus technique.

CONCLUSION

The IPOM-plus technique has been shown to greatly reduce the occurrence of recurrence, seroma, and mesh bulging. Overall, the IPOM-plus technique is considered a safe and effective procedure. However, additional randomized controlled studies with extended follow-up periods are necessary to further evaluate the IPOM-plus technique.

The effect on incisional hernia of absorbable barbed suture for midline fascial closure in minimally invasive surgery for colorectal and gastric cancers: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia following abdominal surgery is a frequent complication of midline laparotomy. This complication is strongly associated with the technique and material used for suture. While a monofilament absorbable suture is recommended to prevent incisional hernia, it can lead to suture loosening or surgical-knot breakage. Although barbed sutures can be an alternative suture material in abdominal fascial closure, evidence for its safety and effectiveness is lacking. Therefore, we designed a prospective randomized trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of absorbable barbed sutures for midline fascia closure in minimally invasive surgery for colorectal and gastric cancers in comparison with conventional absorbable monofilament sutures.

METHODS

A total of 312 patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery for colorectal and gastric cancers will be randomly allocated to either the absorbable barbed or monofilament suture group for abdominal fascia closure in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is incisional hernia rate within 3 years after surgery, as verified by physical examination and computed tomography. Postoperative complications, including surgical site infection, postoperative pain, and quality of life, will be compared between two groups as secondary outcomes. The investigator will examine the patients until discharge and at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.

DISCUSSION

This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare absorbable barbed sutures with monofilament sutures for midline fascia closure in minimally invasive surgery. If absorbable barbed sutures demonstrate superior results to those of monofilament sutures, this type of suture material may be recommended as an alternative option for abdominal fascia closure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

KCT0007069. Registered on January 30, 2023.

Biomechanical considerations of the posterior surgical approach to the lumbar spine

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The effect of the posterior midline approach to the lumbar spine, relevance of inter- and supraspinous ligament (ISL&SSL) sparing, and potential of different wound closure techniques are largely unknown despite their common use.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of the posterior approach, ISL&SSL resection, and different suture techniques.

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical cadaveric study.

METHODS

Five fresh frozen human torsi were stabilized at the pelvis in the erect position. The torsi were passively loaded into the forward bending position and the sagittal angulation of the sacrum, L4 and T12 were measured after a level-wise posterior surgical approach from L5/S1 to T12/L1 and after a level-wise ISL&SSL dissection of the same sequence. The measurements were repeated after the surgical closure of the thoracolumbar fascia with and without suturing the fascia to the spinous processes.

RESULTS

Passive spinal flexion was increased by 0.8±0.3° with every spinal level accessed by the posterior approach. With each additional ISL&SSL resection, a total increase of 1.6±0.4° was recorded. Suturing of the thoracolumbar fascia reduced this loss of resistance against lumbar flexion by 70%. If the ISL&SSL were resected, fascial closure reduced the lumbar flexion by 40% only. In both settings, suturing the fascia to the spinous processes did not result in a significantly different result (p=.523 and p=.730 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Each level accessed by a posterior midline approach is directly related to a loss of resistance against passive spinal flexion. Additional resection of ISL&SSL multiplies it by a factor of two.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The surgical closure of the thoracolumbar fascia can reduce the above mentioned loss of resistance partially. Suturing the fascia to the spinal processes does not result in improved passive stability.