Prosthetic repair of an incarcerated groin hernia with small intestinal resection

Assessing the Safety of Mesh Repair in Strangulated Groin Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The use of mesh in emergency repair of complicated groin hernias has been a subject of discussion for decades. While it is now generally accepted that mesh could safely be used in incarcerated (irreducible) and obstructed hernias (without strangulation), with wound infection rates comparable to suture repairs, the use of mesh in strangulated hernias involving bowel resection is still controversial. The aim of this study, therefore, was to analyse the safety of mesh use in strangulated hernias with ischaemic bowel at the time of surgery. A literature search was carried out using relevant keywords. The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 framework anddata analysis was done using the Review Manager version 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) meta-analysis software. Seven studies comprising 1,159 patients who had emergency surgery for strangulated groin hernias were analysed. A pooled random effect meta-analysis did not show any significant difference in the surgical site infection rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.39-1.96, p = 0.75), seroma formation (OR = 3.39; 95% CI = 0.70-16.43; p = 0.13), and hernia recurrence (OR = 0.33; CI = 0.05-2.22; p = 0.26) between the two groups. The long-held concern that mesh could not be safely used in strangulated groin hernias has not been validated by the results obtained from this systematic review and meta-analysis. However, more randomised controlled trials in this clinical area would need to be carried out to further validate the results of this study.

Mesh repair versus non-mesh repair for incarcerated and strangulated groin hernia: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mesh repair in incarcerated or strangulated groin hernia is controversial, especially when bowel resection is required. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing mesh and non-mesh repair in patients undergoing emergency groin hernia repair.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of databases to identify studies comparing mesh and primary suture repair of patients with incarcerated or strangulated inguinal or femoral hernias who underwent emergency surgery. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics.

RESULTS

1095 studies were screened and 101 were thoroughly reviewed. Twenty observational studies and four randomized controlled trials comprising 12,402 patients were included. We found that mesh-based repair had reduced recurrence (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.19, 0.67; P = 0.001; I2 = 35%), length of hospital stay (OR - 1.02; 95% CI - 1.87, - 0.17; P = 0.02; I2 = 94%) and operative time (OR - 9.21; 95% CI - 16.82, - 1.61; P = 0.02; I2 = 95%) without increasing surgical site infection, mortality or postoperative complications such as seroma, chronic, ileus or urinary retention. In the subgroup analysis of patients that underwent bowel resection, we found that mesh repair was associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.04, 2.91; P = 0.04; I2 = 9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh repair for incarcerated and strangulated groin hernias reduces recurrence without an increase in postoperative complications and should be considered in clean cases. However, in the setting of bowel resection, mesh repair might increase the incidence of surgical site infection.

Mesh versus non-mesh for emergency groin hernia repair

BACKGROUND

A groin hernia is a collective name for inguinal and femoral hernias, which can present acutely with incarceration or strangulation of the hernia sac content, requiring emergency treatment. Timely repair of emergency groin hernias is crucial due to the risk of reduced blood supply and thus damage to the bowel, but the optimal surgical approach is unclear. While mesh repair is the standard treatment for elective hernia surgery, using mesh for emergency groin hernia repair remains controversial due to the risk of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of mesh compared with non-mesh in emergency groin hernia repair in adult patients with an inguinal or femoral hernia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 5 August 2022, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid, as well as two trial registers for ongoing and completed trials. Additionally, we performed forward and backward citation searches for the included trials and relevant review articles. We searched without any language or publication restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mesh with non-mesh repair in emergency groin hernia surgery in adults. We included any mesh and any non-mesh repairs. All studies fulfilling the study, participant, and intervention criteria were included irrespective of reported outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We based missing data analysis on best- and worst-case scenarios. For outcomes with sufficiently low heterogeneity, we performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. We analysed subgroups when feasible, including the degree of contamination. We used RoB 2 for risk of bias assessment, and summarised the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials randomising 1241 participants undergoing emergency groin hernia surgery with either mesh (626 participants) or non-mesh hernia repair (615 participants). The studies were conducted in China, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most patients were men, and most participants had an inguinal hernia (41 participants had femoral hernias). The mean/median age in the mesh group ranged from 35 to 70 years, and from 41 to 69 years in the non-mesh group. All studies were performed in a hospital emergency setting (tertiary care) and lasted for 11 to 139 months, with a median study duration of 31 months. The majority of the studies only included participants with clean to clean-contaminated surgical fields. For all outcomes, we considered the certainty of the evidence to be very low, mainly downgraded due to high risk of bias (due to deviations from intended intervention and missing outcome data), indirectness, and imprecision. Mesh hernia repair may have no effect on or slightly increase the risk of 30-day surgical site infections (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.88; I² = 21%; 2 studies, 454 participants) when compared with non-mesh hernia repair, but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of mesh hernia repair compared with non-mesh hernia repair on 30-day mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.28; 1 study, 208 participants). In summary, the results showed 70 more (from 5 fewer to 200 more) surgical site infections and 29 more (from 32 fewer to 175 more) deaths within 30 days of mesh hernia repair per 1000 participants compared with non-mesh hernia repair. The evidence is very uncertain about 90-day surgical site infections after mesh versus non-mesh hernia repair (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.64; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No 30-day recurrences were recorded, and mesh hernia repair may not reduce recurrence within one year (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.03; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Within 30 days of hernia repair, no meshes were removed from clean to clean-contaminated fields, but 6.7% of meshes (1 study, 208 participants) were removed from contaminated to dirty surgical fields. Among the four studies reporting 90-day mesh removal, no events occurred. We were not able to identify any studies reporting complications classified according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification or reoperation for complications within 30 days of repair.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that in terms of 30-day surgical site infections, 30-day mortality, and hernia recurrence within one year, the evidence for the use of mesh hernia repair compared with non-mesh hernia repair in emergency groin hernia surgery is very uncertain. Unfortunately, firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to very low-certainty evidence and meta-analyses based on small-sized and low-quality studies. There is a need for future high-quality RCTs or high-quality registry-based studies if RCTs are unfeasible.

Clinician preferences in the treatment of acutely symptomatic hernia: the 'MASH' survey

INTRODUCTION

There is limited high-quality evidence to guide the management of acute hernia presentation. The aim of this study was to survey surgeons to assess current trends in assessment, treatment strategy and operative decisions in the management of acutely symptomatic hernia.

METHODS

A survey was developed with reference to current guidelines, and reported according to Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys guidelines. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Sheffield (UREC:034047). The survey explored practice in groin, umbilical/paraumbilical and incisional hernia presenting acutely. It captured respondent demographics, and preferences for investigations, treatment strategies and repair techniques for each hernia type, using a five-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Some 145 responses were received, of which 39 declared a specialist hernia practice. Essential investigations included urea and electrolytes (58.6%) and inflammatory markers (55.6%). Computed tomography scan of the abdomen was essential for assessment of incisional hernia (90.9%), but not for other hernia types. Bowel compromise drives early surgery, and increasing American Society of Anesthesiology score pushes towards non-operative management. Type of repair was driven by hernia contents, with increasing contamination associated with increased rates of suture repair. Where mesh was proposed in contaminated settings, biological types were preferred. There was variation in the potential use of laparoscopy for groin hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides a snapshot of current trends in the management of acutely symptomatic hernia. It demonstrates variation across aspects of assessment and repair technique. Additional data are required to inform practice in these areas.

Mesh versus non‐mesh for emergency groin hernia repair

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

Laparoscopic approach as a safe and effective option for incarcerated femoral hernias

INTRODUCTION

The laparoscopic approach for elective femoral herniorrhaphy is well established. However, femoral hernias often present as incarcerations and require emergency repair surgery, mainly using the open approach. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the efficacy of the laparoscopic approach for incarcerated femoral hernias.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent emergency surgery for incarcerated femoral hernia between April 2016 and August 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Laparoscopy was performed whenever possible; however, conversion to an open approach remained a fallback option for when laparoscopic repair was not possible. In laparoscopic repair, incarcerated femoral hernias reduced using traction, water pressure, and preperitoneal methods. Data of patients who underwent open repair and laparoscopy were then compared.

RESULTS

During the observation period, 20 patients underwent emergency surgery for incarcerated femoral hernia. Eleven patients subsequently underwent repair using a laparoscopic approach, and eight underwent repair using an open approach. Only one patient underwent intestinal resection without hernia repair due to perforated bowel. Operative time for laparoscopic repair was longer. Mesh repair was performed in 18 patients. Four patients each in the laparoscopic repair and open group required intestinal resection.

CONCLUSION

Incarcerated femoral hernias can be safely repaired using the laparoscopic approach.

De Garengeot hernias. Over a century of experience. A systematic review of the literature and presentation of two cases

De Garengeot hernia is a rare femoral hernia that contains the vermiform appendix. It has always been a subject of interest, mainly because of its uncommon entity, but also because of the diagnostic challenge it presents and the lack of consensus in its surgical management. It mainly presents as an emergency, with strangulation of the femoral hernia and acute inflammation of the appendix. The purpose of this study is to present two cases of De Garengeot hernias, the different surgical approach in each one and to perform a systematic literature review on all published accounts of De Garengeot hernias focusing on the surgical management of the hernias that contained an inflamed appendix. A literature search was performed using the keywords 'De Garengeot hernia' and 'appendicitis in femoral hernia'. All the published papers in the English language from 1898 to the end of 2019, as well as two patients from Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, were included. There were 110 female vs 17 males. The majority of the described approaches were via either a Lockwood, or a transinguinal (Lothestein/McVay) incision. Most of the operations were done with an open incision. In the presence of an inflamed appendix, most hernias were repaired with sutures. Forty-one patients had their hernia repaired with non-absorbable sutures and four with absorbable. Most of the patients recovered without complications and were discharged after an average of 4.82 days.

Comparison of postoperative infection after emergency inguinal hernia surgery with enterectomy between mesh repair and non-mesh repair: a national database analysis

PURPOSE

Synthetic non-absorbable mesh is used for elective inguinal hernia repair but is not commonly used for incarcerated or strangulated inguinal hernia requiring enterectomy to reduce the risk of surgical-site infection. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of synthetic non-absorbable mesh repair in patients with incarcerated or strangulated inguinal hernia requiring enterectomy versus non-mesh repair.

METHODS

We analyzed patients with incarcerated or strangulated inguinal hernia with enterectomy from April 2012 to March 2017 using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan. We conducted overlap propensity score-weighted analyses to compare surgical-site infection (SSI), duration of anesthesia, antibiotic use at > 3 days after surgery, postoperative hospital stay, and 30 day readmission. Two sensitivity analyses were performed. First, we compared the proportions of patients requiring wound culture at ≥ 3 days after surgery. Second, we performed overlap propensity score-weighted logistic regression analyses for surgical-site infection.

RESULTS

We identified 668 eligible patients, comprising 223 patients with mesh repair and 445 with non-mesh repair. Overlap propensity score-weighted analyses showed no significant differences between the mesh repair and non-mesh repair groups for SSI (2.5 vs. 2.8%, P = 0.79). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups. Proportion of wound culture at ≥ 3 days after surgery was similar in the two groups (11.1 vs. 14.6%, P = 0.18). Logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between mesh repair and SSI (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-2.57).

CONCLUSION

Synthetic non-absorbable mesh use may be safe for incarcerated or strangulated inguinal hernia requiring enterectomy.

Effectiveness and Safety of Mesh Repair for Incarcerated or Strangulated Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hernia repair with mesh in patients with incarcerated or strangulated hernias is controversial. Moreover, the use of mesh for hernia repair with concomitant bowel resection poses a great dilemma. This study compared the outcomes of mesh and anatomic repairs in patients with acutely incarcerated or strangulated hernias.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies published before November 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies were included. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. The treatment outcome was measured by the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI), seroma formation, and hernia recurrence postoperatively.

RESULTS

Two RCTs and six prospective studies with 978 patients were included. No significant difference in SSI incidence was observed between patients with incarcerated hernia from the mesh and anatomic repair groups. Recurrence was significantly lower in mesh repair group than in anatomic repair group (odds ratio, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.45). Only two patients needed to have mesh explantation due to mesh infection. In the setting of hernia repair with concomitant bowel resection, the SSI rate with mesh repair was slightly higher, but most cases of infections were well controlled with conservative antibiotic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh repair for incarcerated or strangulated hernias was feasible with a great benefit of lower recurrence rates. However, due to limited data, drawing conclusions regarding the use of mesh for hernia repair with concomitant bowel resection was difficult. Further studies with preset criteria for evaluating patients undergoing concomitant bowel resection may help elucidate this issue.

A retrospective cohort study of open preperitoneal repair versus open suture repair for the treatment of emergency femoral hernia

To compare the outcomes of open preperitoneal repair (OPR) with the use of mesh and open suture repair (OSR) without mesh via inguinal approach for the treatment of emergency femoral hernia (FH). The primary outcome was the postoperative complication and the secondary outcomes were the recurrence rate of FH and the postoperative comfort level at the surgical site. 104 patients with emergency FHs were included, of whom 51 patients were treated with OPR, 53 patients were treated with OSR. Between the two groups, no significant difference was found in surgical site infection (SSI) (P = 0.801) or seroma (P = 0.843), while there was significant difference in the improvement of comfort at the surgical site (P = 0.013). The results of the 2-year follow-up demonstrated 1 and 8 cases of recurrence in the OPR and OSR group respectively, which was statistically significant (HR, 8.193 [95% CI, 1.024 to 65.547], P = 0.047). Compared with OSR, OPR with the use of mesh did not increase the risk of SSI and was safe to apply even under the condition of an emergency FH operation with intestine resection; OPR could reduce the recurrence rate of FH and improve the comfort at the surgical site.

Emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias: WSES guidelines

PURPOSE

In July 2013, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held the first Consensus Conference on emergency repair of abdominal wall hernias in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines to assist surgeons in the management of complicated abdominal wall hernias. Guidelines were updated in 2017 in keeping with varying clinical practice: benefits resulting from the increased use of biological prosthesis in the emergency setting were highlighted, as previously published in the World Journal of Emergency Surgery. This executive summary is intended to consolidate knowledge on the emergency management of complicated hernias by providing the broad readership with a practical and concise version of the original guidelines.

METHODS

This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines reporting on the emergency management of complicated abdominal wall hernias; statements are highlighted focusing the readers' attention on the main concepts presented in the original guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency repair of complicated abdominal hernias remains one of the most common and challenging surgical emergencies worldwide. WSES aims to provide an essential version of the evidence-based guidelines focusing on the timing of intervention, laparoscopic approach, surgical repair following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wound classification, antimicrobial prophylaxis and anesthesia in the emergency setting.

The results of open preperitoneal prosthetic mesh repair for acutely incarcerated or strangulated inguinal hernia: a retrospective study of 146 cases

BACKGROUND

Tension-free hernia repair has been regarded as the gold-standard treatment for selected inguinal hernias, but the use of prosthetic mesh in acutely incarcerated or strangulated inguinal hernias is controversial. Our aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of open prosthetic mesh repairs for emergency inguinal hernias.

METHODS

Patients with acutely incarcerated or strangulated inguinal hernias who underwent open preperitoneal prosthetic mesh repairs during 2013 to 2016 at our department were included. Patients' characteristics, operative details, results, and complications were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

During a 4-year period, 146 cases who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in our study. There were 127 males and 19 females of median age 75 years (range 19-95 years). The hernia was indirect inguinal in 104 (71.2%) patients, direct inguinal in 18 (12.3%), and femoral hernia in 24 (16.5%). Bowel resection was necessary in 20 patients (13.7%). Complications occurred in 15 (10.3%) patients, including wound infection in 6 (4.1%), scrotal hematoma in 2 (1.4%), bleeding in 1 (0.7%), deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in 2 (1.4%), and chest infection in 4 (2.7%). No mesh-related infections were detected. There were 2 mortalities. During the median follow-up of 26 months (range 6-53 months) 2 recurrences occurred, but there were no deaths or further infections.

CONCLUSION

Open preperitoneal prosthetic mesh repair can be safely performed in patients with incarcerated or strangulated inguinal hernia without contaminated hernia content. Mesh repair is not contraindicated in patients with bowel resection.

The Use of Prosthetic Mesh in the Emergency Management of Acute Incarcerated Inguinal Hernias

INTRODUCTION

Tension-free hernia repair has been regarded as a gold standard treatment for selected inguinal hernias, but the use of prosthetic mesh in acute incarcerated inguinal hernias is controversial. Our study focused on evaluating the safety and efficacy of the prosthetic mesh repair for emergency cases.

METHODS

Patients with acute incarcerated inguinal hernias who underwent emergency prosthetic mesh repair during 2009 to 2014 at our department were included. Patient characteristics, operative approaches and results, and complications were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients were included in our study. One hundred and twenty-two patients underwent open surgery while the remaining 45 patients underwent transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic approach. The hernia was indirect inguinal in 133 patients (79.6%), direct inguinal in 15 patients (9.0%), and femoral in 19 patients (11.4%). The overall wound infection rate of these patients was 3%. Nonviable intestinal resection was performed in 25 patients (8.4%), only 2 of whom underwent wound infection. Another 3 patients who developed wound infection had viable hernia content. There was no mesh-related infection. There was no statistically significant difference in wound infection rates between patients with viable hernia contents and those with nonviable contents ( P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The use of the prosthetic mesh in the treatment of acute incarcerated inguinal hernia is safe and effective. Nonviable intestinal resection cannot be regarded as a contradiction of the mesh repair.

Efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal repair for irreducible or incarcerated inguinal hernia

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for totally extraperitoneal repair (SILS-TEP) of irreducible inguinal hernias and incarcerated inguinal hernias.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 194 patients, including 16 with irreducible or incarcerated hernia, who had undergone SILS-TEP from May 2016 to December 2017 at Kinki Central Hospital. The outcomes of patients with irreducible or incarcerated hernia and those with reducible hernia were compared. For irreducible or incarcerated hernia, laparoscopic exploration with hernia reduction through an intraumbilical incision was performed. If no bowel resection was needed, one-stage SILS-TEP was performed. If bowel resection was required, two-stage SILS-TEP was performed 2-3 months after the bowel resection.

RESULTS

Of the 16 patients, 8 had an irreducible hernia, and 8 had an incarcerated hernia. The eight patients with an incarcerated hernia underwent emergency surgery, and among these patients, two needed single-incision laparoscopic partial resection of the ileum followed by two-stage SILS-TEP. Fourteen patients, excluding the two patients who required single-incision laparoscopic partial resection of the ileum, underwent laparoscopic exploration with hernia reduction followed by one-stage SILS-TEP. Among these 14 patients, one with an irreducible hernia required conversion to Kugel patch repair. The operative outcomes were generally comparable between the two groups. However, the operative time was longer for unilateral hernia, and more seromas were seen in the irreducible or incarcerated group. No other major complications or cases of hernia recurrence were noted in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

SILS-TEP, which offers good cosmetic results, can be safely performed for irreducible or incarcerated inguinal hernia.

Risk factors of postoperative complications after emergency repair of incarcerated groin hernia for adult patients: a retrospective cohort study

Purpose

This study aimed to explore risk factors of postoperative complications for adult patients with incarcerated groin hernia (IGH).

Methods

From January 2010 to December 2017, consecutive patients undergoing emergency hernia repair for IGH in our center were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative complications, such as surgical site infection, seroma, hernia recurrence and mortality, were investigated, with risk factors for such complications analyzed using univariate and multivariate regressions.

Results

Sixty-four patients were included, with 51 males and 13 females (mean age 65.1, range 25–98 years). Ten patients (15.6%) underwent resection of necrotic bowel and anastomosis. 43 patients (67.2%) received open tension-free herniorrhaphy with polypropylene mesh, whereas the rest (32.8%) received herniorrhaphy without mesh. The overall postoperative complication rate was 40.6% (26/64), with an incisional complication rate of 31.2% (20/64) and an infection rate of 6.2% (4/64). At a median follow-up of 32 months, hernia recurrence and mortality were recorded in five cases each (7.8%). Mesh repair was associated with decreased recurrence rate compared with non-mesh repair (2.3% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.019). Diabetes mellitus (OR 8.611, 95%CI 1.292–57.405; p = 0.026) was an independent risk factor of postoperative complications, together with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; OR 14.365, 95%CI 1.652–127.767, p = 0.016), intestinal necrosis (OR 14.260, 95%CI 1.079–188.460, p = 0.044), and general anesthesia (OR 14.543, 95%CI 1.682–125.711, p = 0.015) as risk for incisional complications after surgery.

Conclusions

Diabetes mellitus was an independent risk factor of postoperative complications for IGH, along with COPD, intestinal necrosis and general anesthesia associated with incisional complications. The use of polypropylene mesh did not increase infection or recurrence rate in this cohort.

International guidelines for groin hernia management

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, more than 20 million patients undergo groin hernia repair annually. The many different approaches, treatment indications and a significant array of techniques for groin hernia repair warrant guidelines to standardize care, minimize complications, and improve results. The main goal of these guidelines is to improve patient outcomes, specifically to decrease recurrence rates and reduce chronic pain, the most frequent problems following groin hernia repair. They have been endorsed by all five continental hernia societies, the International Endo Hernia Society and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.

METHODS

An expert group of international surgeons (the HerniaSurge Group) and one anesthesiologist pain expert was formed. The group consisted of members from all continents with specific experience in hernia-related research. Care was taken to include surgeons who perform different types of repair and had preferably performed research on groin hernia surgery. During the Group's first meeting, evidence-based medicine (EBM) training occurred and 166 key questions (KQ) were formulated. EBM rules were followed in complete literature searches (including a complete search by The Dutch Cochrane database) to January 1, 2015 and to July 1, 2015 for level 1 publications. The articles were scored by teams of two or three according to Oxford, SIGN and Grade methodologies. During five 2-day meetings, results were discussed with the working group members leading to 136 statements and 88 recommendations. Recommendations were graded as "strong" (recommendations) or "weak" (suggestions) and by consensus in some cases upgraded. In the Results and summary section below, the term "should" refers to a recommendation. The AGREE II instrument was used to validate the guidelines. An external review was performed by three international experts. They recommended the guidelines with high scores. The risk factors for inguinal hernia (IH) include: family history, previous contra-lateral hernia, male gender, age, abnormal collagen metabolism, prostatectomy, and low body mass index. Peri-operative risk factors for recurrence include poor surgical techniques, low surgical volumes, surgical inexperience and local anesthesia. These should be considered when treating IH patients. IH diagnosis can be confirmed by physical examination alone in the vast majority of patients with appropriate signs and symptoms. Rarely, ultrasound is necessary. Less commonly still, a dynamic MRI or CT scan or herniography may be needed. The EHS classification system is suggested to stratify IH patients for tailored treatment, research and audit. Symptomatic groin hernias should be treated surgically. Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic male IH patients may be managed with "watchful waiting" since their risk of hernia-related emergencies is low. The majority of these individuals will eventually require surgery; therefore, surgical risks and the watchful waiting strategy should be discussed with patients. Surgical treatment should be tailored to the surgeon's expertise, patient- and hernia-related characteristics and local/national resources. Furthermore, patient health-related, life style and social factors should all influence the shared decision-making process leading up to hernia management. Mesh repair is recommended as first choice, either by an open procedure or a laparo-endoscopic repair technique. One standard repair technique for all groin hernias does not exist. It is recommended that surgeons/surgical services provide both anterior and posterior approach options. Lichtenstein and laparo-endoscopic repair are best evaluated. Many other techniques need further evaluation. Provided that resources and expertise are available, laparo-endoscopic techniques have faster recovery times, lower chronic pain risk and are cost effective. There is discussion concerning laparo-endoscopic management of potential bilateral hernias (occult hernia issue). After patient consent, during TAPP, the contra-lateral side should be inspected. This is not suggested during unilateral TEP repair. After appropriate discussions with patients concerning results tissue repair (first choice is the Shouldice technique) can be offered. Day surgery is recommended for the majority of groin hernia repair provided aftercare is organized. Surgeons should be aware of the intrinsic characteristics of the meshes they use. Use of so-called low-weight mesh may have slight short-term benefits like reduced postoperative pain and shorter convalescence, but are not associated with better longer-term outcomes like recurrence and chronic pain. Mesh selection on weight alone is not recommended. The incidence of erosion seems higher with plug versus flat mesh. It is suggested not to use plug repair techniques. The use of other implants to replace the standard flat mesh in the Lichtenstein technique is currently not recommended. In almost all cases, mesh fixation in TEP is unnecessary. In both TEP and TAPP it is recommended to fix mesh in M3 hernias (large medial) to reduce recurrence risk. Antibiotic prophylaxis in average-risk patients in low-risk environments is not recommended in open surgery. In laparo-endoscopic repair it is never recommended. Local anesthesia in open repair has many advantages, and its use is recommended provided the surgeon is experienced in this technique. General anesthesia is suggested over regional in patients aged 65 and older as it might be associated with fewer complications like myocardial infarction, pneumonia and thromboembolism. Perioperative field blocks and/or subfascial/subcutaneous infiltrations are recommended in all cases of open repair. Patients are recommended to resume normal activities without restrictions as soon as they feel comfortable. Provided expertise is available, it is suggested that women with groin hernias undergo laparo-endoscopic repair in order to decrease the risk of chronic pain and avoid missing a femoral hernia. Watchful waiting is suggested in pregnant women as groin swelling most often consists of self-limited round ligament varicosities. Timely mesh repair by a laparo-endoscopic approach is suggested for femoral hernias provided expertise is available. All complications of groin hernia management are discussed in an extensive chapter on the topic. Overall, the incidence of clinically significant chronic pain is in the 10-12% range, decreasing over time. Debilitating chronic pain affecting normal daily activities or work ranges from 0.5 to 6%. Chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) is defined as bothersome moderate pain impacting daily activities lasting at least 3 months postoperatively and decreasing over time. CPIP risk factors include: young age, female gender, high preoperative pain, early high postoperative pain, recurrent hernia and open repair. For CPIP the focus should be on nerve recognition in open surgery and, in selected cases, prophylactic pragmatic nerve resection (planned resection is not suggested). It is suggested that CPIP management be performed by multi-disciplinary teams. It is also suggested that CPIP be managed by a combination of pharmacological and interventional measures and, if this is unsuccessful, followed by, in selected cases (triple) neurectomy and (in selected cases) mesh removal. For recurrent hernia after anterior repair, posterior repair is recommended. If recurrence occurs after a posterior repair, an anterior repair is recommended. After a failed anterior and posterior approach, management by a specialist hernia surgeon is recommended. Risk factors for hernia incarceration/strangulation include: female gender, femoral hernia and a history of hospitalization related to groin hernia. It is suggested that treatment of emergencies be tailored according to patient- and hernia-related factors, local expertise and resources. Learning curves vary between different techniques. Probably about 100 supervised laparo-endoscopic repairs are needed to achieve the same results as open mesh surgery like Lichtenstein. It is suggested that case load per surgeon is more important than center volume. It is recommended that minimum requirements be developed to certify individuals as expert hernia surgeon. The same is true for the designation "Hernia Center". From a cost-effectiveness perspective, day-case laparoscopic IH repair with minimal use of disposables is recommended. The development and implementation of national groin hernia registries in every country (or region, in the case of small country populations) is suggested. They should include patient follow-up data and account for local healthcare structures. A dissemination and implementation plan of the guidelines will be developed by global (HerniaSurge), regional (international societies) and local (national chapters) initiatives through internet websites, social media and smartphone apps. An overarching plan to improve access to safe IH surgery in low-resource settings (LRSs) is needed. It is suggested that this plan contains simple guidelines and a sustainability strategy, independent of international aid. It is suggested that in LRSs the focus be on performing high-volume Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia using low-cost mesh. Three chapters discuss future research, guidelines for general practitioners and guidelines for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The HerniaSurge Group has developed these extensive and inclusive guidelines for the management of adult groin hernia patients. It is hoped that they will lead to better outcomes for groin hernia patients wherever they live. More knowledge, better training, national audit and specialization in groin hernia management will standardize care for these patients, lead to more effective and efficient healthcare and provide direction for future research.

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

Emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias may be associated with worsen outcome and a significant rate of postoperative complications. There is no consensus on management of complicated abdominal hernias. The main matter of debate is about the use of mesh in case of intestinal resection and the type of mesh to be used. Wound infection is the most common complication encountered and represents an immense burden especially in the presence of a mesh. The recurrence rate is an important topic that influences the final outcome. A World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Consensus Conference was held in Bergamo in July 2013 with the aim to define recommendations for emergency repair of abdominal wall hernias in adults. This document represents the executive summary of the consensus conference approved by a WSES expert panel. In 2016, the guidelines have been revised and updated according to the most recent available literature.

Two-stage laparoscopic treatment for strangulated inguinal, femoral and obturator hernias: totally extraperitoneal repair followed by intestinal resection assisted by intraperitoneal laparoscopic exploration

PURPOSE

Total extraperitoneal preperitoneal (TEP) repair is widely used for inguinal, femoral, or obturator hernia treatment. However, mesh repair is not often used for strangulated hernia treatment if intestinal resection is required because of the risk of postoperative mesh infection. Complete mesh repair is required for hernia treatment to prevent postoperative recurrence, particularly in patients with femoral or obturator hernia.

CASES

We treated four patients with inguinocrural and obturator hernias (a 72-year-old male with a right indirect inguinal hernia; an 83-year-old female with a right obturator hernia; and 86- and 82-year-old females with femoral hernias) via a two-stage laparoscopic surgery. All patients were diagnosed with intestinal obstruction due to strangulated hernia. First, the incarcerated small intestine was released and then laparoscopically resected. Further, 8-24 days after the first surgery, bilateral TEP repairs were performed in all patients; the postoperative course was uneventful in all patients, and they were discharged 5-10 days after TEP repair. At present, no hernia recurrence has been reported in any patient.

CONCLUSION

The two-stage laparoscopic treatment is safe for treatment of strangulated inguinal, femoral, and obturator hernias, and complete mesh repair via the TEP method can be performed in elderly patients to minimize the occurrence of mesh infection.

Effectiveness of mesh hernioplasty in incarcerated inguinal hernias

INTRODUCTION

The use of mesh is still controversial in patients undergoing emergency incarcerated hernia repair, mostly because of potential infectious complications.

AIM

The main aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of tension-free methods in treating incarcerated inguinal hernias (IIH), with and without intestine resection. The secondary aim was to establish an algorithm on how to proceed with incarcerated hernias.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent surgery due to an inguinal hernia at the First Department of General Surgery Jagiellonian University Medical College in Krakow, in the period 1999-2009. Operative methods included Lichtenstein, Robbins-Rutkow and Prolene Hernia System. The rate of postoperative complications was compared in patients who underwent elective and emergency surgery.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 567 patients (546 male) age 19-91 years. In this group 624 hernias were treated using the three tension-free techniques - 295 using the Lichtenstein method, 236 using PHS and 93 using the RR technique. Out of the 561 operations 89.9% were elective. No correlation (p > 0.05) was found between the type of surgery and such complications as postoperative pain duration and intensity, fever, micturation disorders, wound healing disorders, testicle hydrocoele, testicle atrophy, spermatic cord cyst, sexual dysfunction, wound dehiscence, wound suppuration, seroma, haematoma and hernia recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh repairs can be safely performed while operating due to an IIH. The use of a synthetic implant, in emergency IIH repairs, does not increase the rate of local complications. Synchronous, partial resection of the small intestine, due to intestinal necrosis, is not a contraindication to use mesh.

Surgery for incarcerated hernia: short-term outcome with or without mesh

BACKGROUND

Incarcerated hernias represent about 5-15 % of all operated hernias. Tension-free mesh is the preferred technique for elective surgery due to low recurrence rates. There is however currently no consensus on the use of mesh for the treatment of incarcerated hernias, especially in case of bowel resection.

AIM

The aims of this study were (i) to report our current practice for the treatment of incarcerated hernias, (ii) to identify risk factors for postoperative complications, and (iii) to assess the safety of mesh placement in potentially infected surgical fields.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 166 consecutive patients who underwent emergency surgery for incarcerated hernia between January 2007 and January 2012 in two university hospitals. Demographics, surgical details, and short-term outcome were collected. Univariate analysis was employed to identify risk factors for overall, infectious, and major complications.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients (50.6 %) presented inguinal hernias, 43 femoral (25.9 %), 37 umbilical hernias (22.3 %), and 2 mixed hernias (1.2 %), respectively. Mesh was placed in 64 patients (38.5 %), including 5 patients with concomitant bowel resection. Overall morbidity occurred in 56 patients (32.7 %), and 8 patients (4.8 %) developed surgical site infections (SSI). Univariate risk factors for overall complications were ASA grade 3/4 (P = 0.03), diabetes (P = 0.05), cardiopathy (P = 0.001), aspirin use (P = 0.023), and bowel resection (P = 0.001) which was also the only identified risk factor for SSI (P = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, only bowel incarceration was associated with a higher rate of major morbidity (OR = 14.04; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Morbidity after surgery for incarcerated hernia remains high and depends on comorbidities and surgical presentation. The use of mesh could become current practice even in case of bowel resection.