Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair

Exploring Variable Approaches in Complex Hernia Repair: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Surgeons have long grappled with categorizing complex hernias, leading to varied interpretations and fluctuating incidence rates. Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction (CAWR) addresses repairs for large hernias, with defined factors including size, previous repairs, mesh placement, infections, and comorbidities. This review explores pivotal surgical techniques for complex hernia repair, starting with Preoperative Progressive Pneumoperitoneum (PPP) and progressing to innovative methods like Botulinum Toxin Type A. Mesh fixation, both open and laparoscopic, plays a crucial role, with synthetic and biological mesh options discussed. Hybrid techniques and the "sandwich" approach are proposed for intricate cases. Each technique presents advantages and limitations, emphasizing the ongoing quest for optimal outcomes.

A comparative study in elective repair of large incisional hernias using on-lay mesh vs. sub-lay mesh: a meta-analysis

Ventral abdominal wall incisional hernia is defined as a defect in the musculo-fascial layers of the abdominal wall in the region of the postoperative scar. There is a slight increase in the incidence of incisional hernia in the female gender. The higher percentage of incisional hernia in females might be due to laxity of abdominal wall muscles after multiple pregnancies and also an increased incidence of obesity in females. To assess incisional hernia repair using two different techniques: on-lay mesh and sub-lay mesh, as regards operative time, postoperative recurrence, wound infection, seroma, hematoma, and flap necrosis. Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched on 15 March 2022. The keywords incisional hernia, sub-lay mesh on-lay mesh, retromuscular mesh, and polypropylene. According to our results, there is a statistical difference between onlay and sublay regarding intra-operative time as sublay mesh is more time-consuming. Regarding postoperative complications, there is no statistical difference in recurrence, seroma, hematoma, flap necrosis, and infection but there is a statistical difference regarding in hospital stay as patients with sub-lay repair stays less than only.

Primary Lumbar Hernia, Review and Proposals for a Standardized Treatment

A lumbar abdominal wall hernia is a protrusion of intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal contents through a weakness in the posterior abdominal wall, usually through the superior or inferior lumbar triangle. Due to its rare occurrence, adequate knowledge of anatomy and methods for optimal diagnosis and treatment might be lacking with many surgeons. We believe a clear understanding of anatomy, a narrative review of the literature and a pragmatic proposal for a step-by-step approach for treatment will be helpful for physicians and surgeons confronted with this condition. We describe the anatomy of this condition and discuss the scarce literature on this topic concerning optimal diagnosis and treatment. Thereafter, we propose a step-by-step approach for a surgical technique supported by intraoperative images to treat this condition safely and prevent potential pitfalls. We believe this approach offers a technically easy way to perform effective reinforcement of the lumbar abdominal wall, offering a low recurrence rate and preventing important complications. After meticulously reading this manuscript and carefully following the suggested approach, any surgeon that is reasonably proficient in minimally invasive abdominal wall surgery (though likely not in lumbar hernia surgery), should be able to treat this condition safely and effectively. This manuscript cannot replace adequate training by an expert surgeon. However, we believe this condition occurs so infrequently that there is likely to be a lack of real experts. This manuscript could help guide the surgeon in understanding anatomy and performing better and safer surgery.

Comparative effectiveness of hybrid and laparoscopic techniques for repairing complex incisional ventral hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The recently developed Hybrid Hernia Repair technique (HHR), an adaptation of the laparoscopic method, has been proposed as a potential alternative for the treatment of complex Incisional Ventral Hernias (IVH). While single-arm studies have reported promising outcomes, a comprehensive meta-analysis affirming these benefits is lacking. This meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical outcomes of HHR and Laparoscopic Hernia Repair (LHR) in the management of IVH.

METHODS

An exhaustive search of the literature was conducted, targeting publications in both English and Chinese that compare HHR and LHR up to March 31, 2023. The primary outcomes examined were operation time, blood loss, and intestinal injury. Secondary outcomes included rates of seroma, wound infection, post-operative acute/chronic pain, recurrence, and mesh bulging. The RevMan 5.0 software facilitated the statistical meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The final analysis incorporated data from 14 studies, encompassing a total of 1158 patients, with 555 undergoing HHR and 603 treated with LHR. Follow-up data, ranging from 12 to 88 months, were available in 12 out of the 14 identified studies. The HHR method was associated with a significantly lower risk of seroma (OR = 0.29, P = 0.0004), but a higher risk of wound infection (OR = 2.10, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two techniques regarding operation time, blood loss, intestinal injury, intestinal obstruction, post-operative pain, mesh bulging, and recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The HHR technique did not demonstrate a clear advantage over LHR in reducing surgical complications, apart from a lower incidence of postoperative seroma. Surgeons with substantial expertise may choose to avoid incidental conversion or intentional hybrid procedures. Further research is needed to clarify the optimal surgical approach for IVH.

Laparoscopic mesh placement during inguinal hernia repair: a meta-analysis of two methods of repair

BACKGROUND

There are several modifications in the technique for the placement of mesh during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. One of these is a slit on the mesh to surround the cord structures which proponents of it suggest that it decreases the recurrence rate due to better anchoring of the mesh and lower risk of displacement. There is only low-level evidence in current literature examining the two methods. The present study aimed to provide stronger evidence in establishing whether the slit mesh technique is superior to the non-slit mesh technique.

METHODS

The reporting of this systematic review was guided by the standards of the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis statement and registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022300629). Eligible studies had to compare the two methods of mesh placement slit Vs nonslit in laparoscopic Inguinal hernia repair and also report on at least one outcome. The outcomes were expressed in odd ratios with their 95% confidence intervals. Where significant heterogeneity existed a random effects model was used otherwise a fixed effects model was used.

RESULTS

Five studies met the criteria for inclusion in quantitative analysis. Overall, there were 10 (1.5%) recurrences in the slit group compared to 12 (2.5%) in the non-slit group OR 0.62, 95% CI (0.27-1.41). There was no difference in the incidence of post-operative bleeding (OR 1.21, 95%CI 0.4-3.66), seroma formation (OR1.5, 95% CI 0.81-2.76), or post-operative neuralgia (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.11-8.92) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference between the two methods.

Laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias: the Italian national guidelines

Primary and incisional ventral hernias are significant public health issues for their prevalence, variability of professional practices, and high costs associated with the treatment In 2019, the Board of Directors of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted the development of new guidelines on the laparoscopic treatment of ventral hernias, according to the new national regulation. In 2022, the guideline was accepted by the government agency, and it was published, in Italian, on the SNLG website. Here, we report the adopted methodology and the guideline's recommendations, as established in its diffusion policy. This guideline is produced according to the methodology indicated by the SNGL and applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Fifteen recommendations were produced as a result of 4 PICO questions. The level of recommendation was conditional for 12 of them and conditional to moderate for one. This guideline's strengths include relying on an extensive systematic review of the literature and applying a rigorous GRADE method. It also has several limitations. The literature on the topic is continuously and rapidly evolving; our results are based on findings that need constant re-appraisal. It is focused only on minimally invasive techniques and cannot consider broader issues (e.g., diagnostics, indication for surgery, pre-habilitation).

Robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic incisional hernia repair following oncologic surgery: short- and long-term outcomes of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with abdominal site cancer are at risk for incisional hernia after open surgery. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted (RVIHR) with the laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LVIHR) in an oncologic institute.

METHODS

This is a single-blinded randomized controlled pilot trial. Patients were randomized into two groups: RVIHR and LVIHR.

RESULTS

Groups have similar baseline characteristics (LVIHR: N = 19; RVIHR: N = 18). No difference was noted in the length of hospital stay (RVIHR: 3.67 ± 1.78 days; LVIHR: 3.95 ± 2.66 days) and postoperative complications (16.7 versus 10.5%; p = 0.94). The mean operating time for RVIHR was significantly longer than LVIHR (RVIHR was 355.6 versus 293.5 min for LVIHR; p = 0.04). Recurrence was seen in three patients in LVIHR and two in RVIHR at 24-month follow-up, with no significant difference. (p > 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted incisional hernia repair show similar short- and long-term outcomes for cancer patients.

Comparative review of outcomes: single-incision laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernia

To compare outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal sub-lay (SIL-TES) mesh repair and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair of ventral hernia (VH). A retrospective selection of 104 patients who underwent VH repair (50 and 54 in the SIL-TES and IPOM groups, respectively) was made. Patient data were collected, and quality of life was evaluated using Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) 1 month and 3 months after surgery. There were no significant differences in sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, defect size, mesh area, estimated blood loss, and complication rate between the groups. Age was lower, body mass index was higher, prevalence of primary VH was significantly higher (p < 0.0001), and pain was less at 24 and 48 h post procedure (p < 0.0001) in the SIL-TES group. Drainage placement was more (p < 0.0001), operation time was shorter (p = 0.012), and hospitalization duration and total hospitalization cost were greater in the IPOM group than that in SIL-TES group (8.3 ± 0.3 vs 4.3 ± 0.4 days, p < 0.0001; $7126.9 ± 141.4 vs $2937.3 ± 58.3, p < 0.0001, respectively). Pain and movement limitation scores evaluated by CCS were significantly worse at 1 month (4.93 ± 0.28 vs 1.75 ± 0.28: p < 0.0001; 2.52 ± 0.24 vs 1.15 ± 0.18: p < 0.0001, respectively) and 3 months (4.32 ± 0.37 vs 0.9 ± 0.29: p < 0.0001; 2.06 ± 0.25 vs 0.69 ± 0.11: p < 0.0001, respectively) in IPOM group, compared with the according scores in SIL-TES group. There was no readmission within 30 days and no hernia recurrence at mean follow-up of 12 months. SIL-TES mesh repair is safe and effective and is superior to IPOM repair.

Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair

BACKGROUND

The use of a mesh in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair lowers the recurrence rate  and is the accepted standard of care for larger defects. In laparoscopic primary ventral or incisional hernia repair the insertion of a mesh is indispensable. Different mesh fixation techniques have been used and refined over the years. The type of fixation technique is claimed to have a major impact on recurrence rates, chronic pain, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and complication rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of different mesh fixation techniques for primary and incisional ventral hernia repair on hernia recurrence, chronic pain, HRQOL and complications.

SEARCH METHODS

On 2 October 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid MEDLINE(R)) Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R)), Ovid Embase, and two trials registries. We also performed handsearches, and contacted experts from the European Hernia Society (EHS).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with primary ventral or incisional hernia that compared different types of mesh fixation techniques (absorbable/nonabsorbable sutures, absorbable/nonabsorbable tacks, fibrin glue, and combinations of these techniques).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in standardised piloted tables, or if necessary, directly into Review Manager 5. We assessed risks of bias with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Two review authors independently selected the publications, and extracted data on results. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. For pooling we used an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis or the Peto method in the case of rare events. We prepared GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables. For laparoscopic repair we considered absorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable tacks, and nonabsorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable sutures as key comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials with a total of 787 participants. The number of randomised participants ranged from 40 to 199 per comparison. Eight studies included participants with both primary and incisional ventral hernia. One study included only participants with umbilical hernia, and another only participants with incisional hernia. Hernia size varied between studies. We judged the risk of bias as moderate to high. Absorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable tacks Recurrence rates in the groups were similar (RR 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 3.22; 2 studies, 101 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between absorbable tacks and nonabsorbable tacks in recurrence because the certainty of evidence was very low. Evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up, chronic pain and HRQOL is negligible. Nonabsorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable sutures At six months there was one recurrence in each group (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.79; 1 study, 36 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between nonabsorbable tacks and nonabsorbable sutures in recurrence because the certainty of evidence was very low. Evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up and chronic pain is negligible. We found no study that assessed HRQOL. Absorbable tacks compared to absorbable sutures No recurrence was observed at one year (very low certainty of evidence). Early postoperative pain was higher in the tacks group (VAS 0 - 10: MD -2.70, 95% CI -6.67 to 1.27; 1 study, 48 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between absorbable tacks compared to absorbable sutures in early postoperative pain because the certainty of evidence was very low. The MD for late follow-up pain was -0.30 (95% CI -0.74 to 0.14; 1 study, 48 participants). We found no study that assessed HRQOL. Combination of different fixation types (tacks and sutures) or materials (absorbable and nonabsorbable) There were mostly negligible or only small differences between combinations (e.g. tacks plus sutures) compared to a single technique (e.g. sutures only), as well as combinations compared to other combinations (e.g. absorbable sutures combined with nonabsorbable sutures compared to absorbable tacks combined with nonabsorbable tacks) in all outcomes. It is uncertain whether there is an advantage for combining different fixation types or materials for recurrence, chronic pain, HRQOL and complications, because the evidence certainty was very low or low, or we found no study on important outcomes. Nonabsorbable tacks compared to fibrin sealant The two studies showed different directions of effects: one showed higher rates for nonabsorbable tacks, and the other showed higher rates for fibrin sealant. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up, chronic pain and HRQOL is negligible. Absorbable tacks compared to fibrin sealant One recurrence in the tacks group and none in the fibrin sealant group were noted after one year (low certainty of evidence). Early postoperative pain might be slightly lower using tacks (VAS 0 - 100; MD -12.40, 95% CI -27.60 to, 2.80;1 study, 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). The pattern of pain and HRQOL course over time (up to 1 year) was similar in the groups (low certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently none of the techniques can be considered superior to any other, because the certainty of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.