2017 update of the WSES guidelines for emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias

Management strategies and outcome of blunt traumatic abdominal wall defects: a single centre experience

INTRODUCTION

Traumatic abdominal wall defects (TAWDs) following blunt trauma are uncommon injuries with an incidence reported less than 1%. Improved diagnostics and subsequent early detection of otherwise rare injuries raise more questions concerning their treatment. There is lack of consensus on treatment and timing of TAWD. The aim of this study was to analyse the management strategy and outcomes of these injuries in our level I trauma centre.

METHODS

All trauma patients who presented with a TAWD at our trauma centre between 2007 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Blunt abdominal wall injuries were classified, patient characteristics, concomitant injuries and treatment characteristics were recorded. In addition, telephone surveys were conducted to assess patient reported quality of life.

RESULTS

In a period of nearly ten years 21 patients with a TAWD were treated in our hospital, approximately 0.17% of all admitted trauma patients. Seventeen patients were classified as polytrauma patient. Seventeen patients underwent surgical repair in whom 5 recurrences occurred. All of the recurrences were in patients treated without mesh repair (p = 0.03). The quality of life in terms of EQ-VAS was similar for patients treated with and without mesh repair and reasonable when compared to the reference population. Overall quality of life was lower compared to the reference population, mainly due to limitations in daily activities, mobility and pain.

CONCLUSION

Using mesh in the treatment of TAWD, in our hands, showed significantly less recurrences compared to primary closure. We therefore recommend the use of mesh in the repair of TAWDs, both in the acute as well as in the delayed setting when feasible.

Biological Scaffolds for Abdominal Wall Repair: Future in Clinical Application?

Millions of abdominal wall repair procedures are performed each year for primary and incisional hernias both in the European Union and in the United States with extremely high costs. Synthetic meshes approved for augmenting abdominal wall repair provide adequate mechanical support but have significant drawbacks (seroma formation, adhesion to viscera, stiffness of abdominal wall, and infection). Biologic scaffolds (i.e., derived from naturally occurring materials) represent an alternative to synthetic surgical meshes and are less sensitive to infection. Among biologic scaffolds, extracellular matrix scaffolds promote stem/progenitor cell recruitment in models of tissue remodeling and, in the specific application of abdominal wall repair, have enough mechanical strength to support the repair. However, many concerns remain about the use of these scaffolds in the clinic due to their higher cost of production compared with synthetic meshes, despite having the same recurrence rate. The present review aims to highlight the pros and cons of using biologic scaffolds as surgical devices for abdominal wall repair and present possible improvements to widen their use in clinical practice.

Bowel obstruction: a narrative review for all physicians

Small and large bowel obstructions are responsible for approximately 15% of hospital admissions for acute abdominal pain in the USA and ~ 20% of cases needing acute surgical care. Starting from the analysis of a common clinical problem, we want to guide primary care physicians in the initial management of a patient presenting with acute abdominal pain associated with intestinal obstruction.

[Emergency surgery in Russian Federation (in Russian only)]

In the following article, we present the key trends in emergency surgical care in the Russian Federation between 2000 and 2017. The study used data from federal statistical observations and a survey of state medical institutions in 80 regions encompassing 99.3% of the country's population. We discovered a change in the correlation between acute abdominal diseases, particularly a significant reduction in the occurrence of acute appendicitis and perforated peptic ulcer. Reduction in the number of emergency surgeries by 27.8% annually was also observed. Mortality rate decreased in cases of strangulated hernia, acute cholecystitis and acute pancreatitis, while it is stable for bowel obstruction and acute appendicitis and increasing in perforated peptic ulcer cases. The total annual number of lethal outcomes due to acute abdominal diseases was decreased by 1900 cases. Significant changes were observed in mortality rate and minimally invasive surgeries proportions between federal districts and individual regions of the country. The range of administrative measures was proposed.

Emergency laparoscopic and open repair of incarcerated ventral hernias: a multi-institutional comparative analysis with coarsened exact matching

BACKGROUND

The safety of emergent laparoscopic repair of incarcerated ventral hernias is not well established. The objective of this study was to determine if emergent laparoscopic repair of incarcerated ventral hernias is comparable to open repair with respect to short-term clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing emergency repair of an incarcerated ventral hernia with associated obstruction and/or gangrene were identified using the ACS-NSQIP 2012-2016 dataset. One-to-one coarsened exact matching (CEM) was conducted between patients undergoing laparoscopic and open repair. Matched cohorts were compared with respect to morbidity, mortality, readmission, reoperation, missed enterotomies, and length of stay. Missed enterotomy was defined as any re-operative procedure within 30 days that required resection of large or small bowel segments, based on CPT codes. Multivariate analysis was conducted to determine adjusted predictors of morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 1642 patients were identified after CEM. Laparoscopic compared to open repair was associated with a lower rate of 30-day wound-morbidity (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22-0.57, p < 0.001). Laparoscopic repair was not associated with lower 30-day non-wound morbidity (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.51-1.06, p = 0.094). Laparoscopic repair was associated with shorter LOS (3.6 days vs. 4.3 days, p = 0.014). A higher rate of missed enterotomies was observed in the laparoscopic cohort (0.7% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.031). There were no group differences with respect to 30-day readmission, reoperation, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency laparoscopic repair of incarcerated ventral hernias is associated with lower rates of wound-morbidity and shorter hospital stays compared to open repair. However, laparoscopic repair is associated with a higher rate of missed enterotomies; a rate which is low and comparable to elective non-incarcerated ventral hernia repairs.

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION

Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations.

METHODS

A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used.

RESULTS

The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.