Laparoscopic repair of primary versus incisional ventral hernias: time to recognize the differences?

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.

Robotic transabdominal retromuscular rectus diastasis (r-TARRD) repair: a new approach

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to present our innovative robotic approach for the treatment of rectus diastasis with concurrent primary or incisional ventral hernias.

METHODS

We performed 45 r-TARRD repairs for symptomatic rectus diastasis with concomitant associated ventral/incisional umbilical and/or epigastric hernias between January 2019 and January 2020. Data on patient demographics, type of hernia, operative time, complications, recurrence rate, and hospital stay were retrospectively analyzed. Follow-up was scheduled at 1, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

45 patients (13 M, 32 F) underwent r-TARRD repair. Mean age was 54.8 years (range 31-68) and mean BMI was 26.74 kg/m² (range 21.1-31). Mean ASA was 2.2 (range 1-3). In all patients we used a polypropylene mesh 25 × 15 cm, properly shaped. Mean operative time was 192 min (range 115-260). Mean hospital stay 4.2 days (range 2-7). No conversion to laparoscopy or open surgery and no major complications occurred. At 1-month follow-up one mesh infection (2.22%) was observed and it was treated conservatively. Four recurrences (8.88%) were reported at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted TARRD repair is conceived as a novel alternative minimally invasive procedure for RD with concurrent midline defects ensuring a primary fascial defect closure and mesh implantation in a sublay position with a wide overlap. It is important to better evaluate the suture that should be used to perform the repair, and multicenter studies with standardization of patient's demographics, RD characteristics, and long-term follow-up outcomes are mandatory to assess the effectiveness and durability of r-TARDD repair.

Analysis of Factors Relevant to Revenue Improvement in Ventral Hernia Repair, Their Influence on Surgical Training, and Development of Predictive Models: An Economic Evaluation

Background: Ventral hernia repairs (VHR) are frequent but loss- making. This study aims to identify epidemiological and procedure related factors in VHR and their influence on surgical training. Methods: Data from 86 consecutive patients who underwent VHR in 2019 was collected. Moreover, 66 primary ventral hernias and 20 incisional hernias were repaired in open procedures. Linear regression models were made. Results: Primary VHR procedures showed a mean deficit of −378.17 CHF per case. Incisional hernia repair procedures resulted in a deficit of −1442.50 CHF per case. The two hernia groups were heterogeneous. For the primary VHR procedures, the surgery time (β = 0.564, p < 0.001) had the greatest influence, followed by the costs of the mesh (β = −0.215, p < 0.001). The epidemiological factors gender (β = 0.143, p < 0.01) and body mass index (BMI) (β = −0.087, p = 0.074) were also influential. For incisional hernia procedures a surgeon’s experience had the most significant influence (β = 0.942, p < 0.001), and the second largest influence was the price of the mesh (β = −0.500, p < 0.001). The epidemiological factor BMI (β = −0.590, p < 0.001), gender (β = −0.113, p = 0.055) and age (β = −0.026, p < 0.050) also had a significant influence. Conclusion: Our analysis shows a way of improving financial results in the field of ventral hernia repair. Costs can be visualized and reduced to optimize revenue enhancement in surgical departments. In our analysis primary ventral hernias are an appropriate training operation, in which the experience of the surgeon has no significant impact on costs. In primary VHR procedures, revenue enhancement is limited when using an expensive mesh. However, the treatment of incisional hernias is recommended by specialists. The financial burden is significantly higher with less experience. Therefore, these operations are not suitable for surgical training. The re-operation rate decreases with increasing experience of the surgeon. This directly affects the Patient Related Outcome (PROM) and quality of treatment. Therefore, high-quality training must be enforced. Since financial pressure on hospitals is increasing further, it is crucial to investigate cost influencing factors. The majority of Swiss public hospitals will no longer be able to operate ventral hernias profitably without new concepts. In addition to purchasing management, new construction projects, and mergers, improving the results of individual departments is a key factor in maintaining the profitability of hospitals in the future regarding hernia repair without losing the scope of teaching procedures.

Potential influencing factors on the outcome in incisional hernia repair: a registry-based multivariable analysis of 22,895 patients

INTRODUCTION

Due to the paucity of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses of incisional hernia repair can hardly give any insights into the influence factors on the various outcome criteria. Therefore, a multivariable analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry was undertaken with the aim to define potential influencing factors for the outcome.

METHODS

Multivariable analysis of the data available for 22,895 patients with primary elective incisional hernia repair was performed to assess the confirmatory predefined potential influence factors and their association with the perioperative and 1-year follow-up outcomes. A model validation procedure was implemented using a bootstrap algorithm in order to account for the robustness of results.

RESULTS

Higher European Hernia Society (EHS) width classification, open procedure, female gender, and preoperative pain have a highly significant association with an unfavorable outcome in incisional hernia repair. Larger defect width and open operation have a highly significantly unfavorable relation to the postoperative surgical complications, general complications, and the complication-related reoperations, while female gender and preoperative pain have a highly significantly unfavorable association with the rates of pain at rest, pain on exertion, and chronic pain requiring treatment at 1-year follow-up. The recurrence rate is significantly unfavorably influenced by higher EHS width classification, higher BMI, and lateral EHS classification.

CONCLUSION

Higher EHS width classification, open procedure, female gender, higher BMI, and lateral EHS classification, as well as preoperative pain are the most important unfavorable influencing factors associated with a worse outcome in incisional hernia repair.

What are the trends in incisional hernia repair? Real-world data over 10 years from the Herniamed registry

INTRODUCTION

There is an increasingly controversial debate about the best possible incisional hernia repair technique. Despite the good outcomes of laparoscopic IPOM, concerns about the intraperitoneal mesh placement and its potential intraabdominal complications have risen. Against that background, this paper now analyzes changes and trends in incisional hernia repair techniques in the recent decade.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2019 a total of 61,627 patients with primary elective incisional hernia repair were enrolled in the Herniamed Registry. The outcome results were assigned to the year of repair and summarized as curves to visualize trends. The explorative Fisher's exact test was used for statistical calculation of significant differences. Since the number of cases entered into the Herniamed Registry for the years 2010-2012 was still relatively small, the years 2013 and 2019 were compared for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In the analyzed time period, the proportion of incisional hernias repaired in open suture technique remained unchanged at about 10%. The proportion of laparoscopic IPOM repairs decreased significantly from 33.8% in 2013 to 21.0% (p < 0.001) in 2019. Conversely, the proportion of open sublay repairs increased significantly from 32.1% in 2013 to 41.4% (p < 0.001) in 2019. Starting in 2015, there has also been the introduction and increasing use (4.5% in 2013 vs. 10.0% in 2019; p < 0.001) of new minimally-invasive techniques with placement of a mesh into the sublay/retromuscular/preperitoneal abdominal wall layer (E/MILOS, eTEP, preperitoneal mesh technique).

CONCLUSION

Analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry shows a significant trend to the disadvantage of the laparoscopic IPOM and to the advantage of the open sublay operation and the new minimally-invasive techniques (E/MILOS, eTEP, preperitoneal mesh technique). Despite all the recommendations in the guidelines, 10% of incisional hernias continue to be treated by means of a suture technique.

Laparoscopic IPOM versus open sublay technique for elective incisional hernia repair: a registry-based, propensity score-matched comparison of 9907 patients

BACKGROUND

For comparison of laparoscopic IPOM versus sublay technique for elective incisional hernia repair, the number of cases included in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses is limited. Therefore, an urgent need for more comparative data persists.

METHODS

In total, 9907 patients with an elective incisional hernia repair and 1-year follow-up were selected from the Herniamed Hernia Registry between September 1, 2009 and June 1, 2016. Using propensity score matching, 3965 (96.5%) matched pairs from 4110 laparoscopic IPOM and 5797 sublay operations were formed for comparison of the techniques.

RESULTS

Comparison of laparoscopic IPOM versus open sublay revealed disadvantages for the sublay operation regarding postoperative surgical complications (3.4% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.001), complication-related reoperations (1.5% vs. 4.7%; p < 0.001), and postoperative general complications (2.5% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.004). The majority of surgical postoperative complications were surgical site infection, seroma, and bleeding. Laparoscopic IPOM had disadvantages in terms of intraoperative complications (2.3% vs. 1.3%; p < 0.001), mainly bleeding, bowel, and other organ injuries. No significant differences in the recurrence and pain rates at 1-year follow-up were observed.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic IPOM was found to have advantages over the open sublay technique regarding the rates of both surgical and general postoperative complications as well as complication-related reoperations, but disadvantages regarding the rate of intraoperative complications.

Pooled data analysis of primary ventral (PVH) and incisional hernia (IH) repair is no more acceptable: results of a systematic review and metanalysis of current literature

PURPOSE

Primary (PVHs) and incisional (IHs) ventral hernias represent a common indication for surgery. Nevertheless, most of the papers presented in literature analyze both types of defect together, thus potentially introducing a bias in the results of interpretation. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to highlight the differences between these two entities.

METHODS

Methods MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were reviewed to identify studies evaluating the outcomes of both open and laparoscopic repair with mesh of PVHs vs IHs. Search was restricted to English language literature. Risk of bias was assessed with MINORS score. Primary outcome was recurrence, and secondary outcomes were baseline characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative data. Fixed effects model was used unless significant heterogeneity, assessed with the Higgins I square (I²), was encountered.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 783 hits, after screening; 11 retrospective trials were selected including 38,727 patients. Mean MINORS of included trials was 15.2 (range 5-21). The estimated pooled proportion difference for recurrence was - 0.09 (- 0.11; - 0.07) between the two groups in favor of the PVH group. On metanalysis, PVHs were smaller in area and diameters, affected younger and less comorbid patients, and were more frequently singular; the operative time and length of stay was quicker. Other complications did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

Our paper supports the hypothesis that PVH and IH are different conditions with the latter being more challenging to treat. Accordingly, EHS classifications should be adopted systematically as well as pooling data analysis should be no longer performed in clinical trials.

Recurrent Incisional Hernia Repair-An Overview

Introduction: Recurrent incisional hernias with a rate of around 20% account for a relatively large proportion of all incisional hernias. It is difficult to issue any binding recommendations on optimum treatment in view of the relatively few studies available on this topic. This review now aims to collate the data available on recurrent incisional hernia. Material and Methods: A systematic search of the available literature was performed in January 2019 using Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Springer Link, and the Cochrane Library, as well as a search of relevant journals and reference lists. For the present analysis, 47 publications were identified as relevant. Results: There are mainly case series available on the treatment of recurrent incisional hernia. Eight evaluable case series and two prospective comparative studies report on treatment of between 27 and 85 recurrent hernias. After primary open repair of incisional hernia and defect sizes of < 8-10 cm, the recurrence operation can be performed in laparoscopic technique provided the surgeon has sufficient experience in that procedure. That also applies to multiple recurrences after exclusively open repair. There are no evaluable data on a repeat laparoscopic approach after minimally invasive repair of primary incisional hernia. Such an approach should only be chosen by very experienced laparoscopic surgeons and based on a well-founded indication. Further data are urgently needed on treatment of recurrent incisional hernia. Conclusion: Very little data are available on the treatment of recurrent incisional hernia. Based on the tailored approach concept, a laparoscopic approach undertaken by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon can be recommended for recurrent hernias after primary open repair and for defects of up to 8-10 cm.

Onlay Technique in Incisional Hernia Repair-A Systematic Review

Introduction: A meta-analysis that compared the onlay vs. sublay technique in open incisional hernia repair identified better outcomes for the sublay operation. Nonetheless, an Expert Consensus Guided by Systematic Review found the onlay mesh location useful in certain settings. Therefore, all studies on the onlay technique were once again collated and analyzed.

Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the available literature was performed in August 2018 using Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Springer Link, and the Cochrane Library. For the present analysis 42 publications were identified as relevant.

Results: In five prospective randomized trials and 17 observational studies the postoperative complication rates ranged between 5 and 76%, with a mean value of 33.5%. The recurrence rates in these studies also ranged between 0 and 32%, with a mean value of 9.9%. Hence, compared with the literature data on the sublay operation, more post-operative complications, in particular wound complications and seroma, with a comparable recurrence rate, were identified.

Conclusion: When the onlay technique is used in certain settings for incisional hernia repair, a careful dissection technique and prophylactic measures (drainage, abdominal binders, fibrin sealant) should be employed to prevent wound complications and seroma formation.

Open Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM) Technique for Incisional Hernia Repair

In an Expert Consensus Guided by Systematic Review the panel agreed that for open elective incisional hernia repair sublay mesh location is preferred, but open intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) may be useful in certain settings. Accordingly, the available literature on the open IPOM technique was searched and evaluated. Material and Methods: A systematic search of the available literature was performed in July 2018 using Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. Forty-five publications were identified as relevant for the key question. Results: Compared to laparoscopic IPOM, the open IPOM technique was associated with significantly higher postoperative complication rates and recurrence rates. For the open IPOM with a bridging situation the postoperative complication rate ranges between 3.3 and 72.0% with a mean value of 20.4% demonstrating high variance, as did the recurrence rate of between 0 and 61.0% with a mean value of 12.6%. Only on evaluation of the upward-deviating maximum values and registry data is a trend toward better outcomes for the sublay technique demonstrated. Through the use of a wide mesh overlap, avoidance of dissection in the abdominal wall and defect closure it appears possible to achieve better outcomes for the open IPOM technique. Conclusion: Compared to the laparoscopic technique, open IPOM is associated with significantly poorer outcomes. For the sublay technique the outcomes are quite similar and only tendentially worse. Further studies using an optimized open IPOM technique are urgently needed.

What Is the Current Knowledge About Sublay/Retro-Rectus Repair of Incisional Hernias?

Introduction: There continues to be very little agreement among experts on the precise treatment strategy for incisional hernias. That is the conclusion drawn from the very limited scientific evidence available on the repair of incisional hernias. The present review now aims to critically assess the data available on the sublay/retro-rectus technique for repair of incisional hernia. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the literature was performed in May 2018 using Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. This article is based on 77 publications. Results: The number of available RCTs that permit evaluation of the role of the sublay/retro-rectus technique in the repair of only incisional hernia is very small. The existing data suggest that the sublay/retro-rectus technique has disadvantages compared with the laparoscopic IPOM technique for repair of incisional hernia, but in that respect has advantages over all other open techniques. However, the few existing studies provide only a limited level of evidence for assessment purposes. Conclusion: Further RCTs based on a standardized technique are urgently needed for evaluation of the role of the sublay/retro-rectus incisional hernia repair technique.

Transient phase behavior of an elastomeric biomaterial applied to abdominal laparotomy closure

Secure closure of the fascial layers after entry into the peritoneal cavity is crucial to prevent incisional hernia, yet appropriate purchase of the tissue can be challenging due to the proximity of the underlying protuberant bowel which may become punctured by the surgical needle or strangulated by the suture itself. Devices currently employed to provide visceral protection during abdominal closure, such as the metal malleable retractor and Glassman Visceral Retainer, are unable to provide complete protection as they must be removed prior to complete closure. A puncture resistant, biocompatible, and degradable matrix that can be left in place without need for removal would facilitate rapid and safe abdominal closure. We describe a novel elastomer (CC-DHA) that undergoes a rapid but controlled solid-to-liquid phase transition through the application of a destabilized carbonate cross-linked network. The elastomer is comprised of a polycarbonate cross-linked network of dihydroxyacetone, glycerol ethoxylate, and tri(ethylene glycol). The ketone functionality of the dihydroxyacetone facilitates hydrolytic cleavage of the carbonate linkages resulting in a rapidly degrading barrier that can be left in situ to facilitate abdominal fascial closure. Using a murine laparotomy model we demonstrated rapid dissolution and metabolism of the elastomer without evidence of toxicity or intraabdominal scarring. Furthermore, needle puncture and mechanical properties demonstrated the material to be both compliant and sufficiently puncture resistant. These unique characteristics make the biomaterial extraordinarily useful as a physical barrier to prevent inadvertent bowel injury during fascial closure, with the potential for wider application across a variety of medical and surgical applications.

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Fascial closure after abdominal surgery requires delicate maneuvers to prevent incisional hernia while minimizing risk for inadvertent bowel injury. We describe a novel biocompatible and biodegradable polycarbonate elastomer (CC-DHA) comprised of dihydroxyacetone, glycerol ethoxylate, and tri(ethylene glycol), for use as a rapidly degrading protective visceral barrier to aid in abdominal closure. Rapid polymer dissolution and metabolism was demonstrated using a murine laparotomy model without evidence of toxicity or intraabdominal scarring. Furthermore, mechanical studies showed the material to be sufficiently puncture resistant and compliant. Overall, this new biomaterial is extraordinary useful as a physical barrier to prevent inadvertent bowel injury during fascial closure, with the potential for wider application across a variety of medical and surgical applications.

Laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair: updated Consensus Development Conference based guidelines [corrected]

BACKGROUND

The Executive board of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted an update of the first evidence-based Italian Consensus Conference Guidelines 2010 because a large amount of literature has been published in the last 4 years about the topics examined and new relevant issues.

METHODS

The scientific committee selected the topics to be addressed: indications to surgical treatment including special conditions (obesity, cirrhosis, diastasis recti abdominis, acute presentation); safety and outcome of intraperitoneal meshes (synthetic and biologic); fixing devices (absorbable/non-absorbable); abdominal border and parastomal hernia; intraoperative and perioperative complications; and recurrent ventral/incisional hernia. All the recommendations are the result of a careful and complete literature review examined with autonomous judgment by the entire panel. The process was supervised by experts in methodology and epidemiology from the most qualified Italian institution. Two external reviewers were designed by the EAES and EHS to guarantee the most objective, transparent, and reliable work. The Oxford hierarchy (OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. "The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence") was used by the panel to grade clinical outcomes according to levels of evidence. The recommendations were based on the grading system suggested by the GRADE working group.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The availability of recent level 1 evidence (a meta-analysis of 10 RCTs) allowed to recommend that not only laparoscopic repair is an acceptable alternative to the open repair, but also it is advantageous in terms of shorter hospital stay and wound infection rate. This conclusion appears to be extremely relevant in a clinical setting. Indications about specific conditions could also be issued: laparoscopy is recommended for the treatment of recurrent ventral hernias and obese patients, while it is a potential option for compensated cirrhotic and childbearing-age female patients. Many relevant and controversial topics were thoroughly examined by this consensus conference for the first time. Among them are the issue of safety of the intraperitoneal mesh placement, traditionally considered a major drawback of the laparoscopic technique, the role for the biologic meshes, and various aspects of the laparoscopic approach for particular locations of the defect such as the abdominal border or parastomal hernias.

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: outcomes in primary versus incisional hernias: no effect of defect closure

PURPOSE

Supposing divergent aetiology, we found it interesting to investigate outcomes between primary (PH) versus incisional (IH) hernias. In addition, we wanted to analyse the effect of defect closure and mesh fixation techniques.

METHODS

37 patients with PH and 70 with IH were enrolled in a prospective cohort-study, treated with laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) and randomised to ± transfascial sutures. In addition, we analysed results from a retrospective study with 36 PH and 51 IH patients. Mean follow-up time was 38 months in the prospective study and 27 months in the retrospective study.

RESULTS

35 % of PH's and 10 % of IH's were recurrences after previous suture repair. No late infections or mesh removals occurred. Recurrence rates in the prospective study were 0 vs. 4.3 % (p = 0.55) and the complication rates were 16 vs. 27 % (p = 0.24) in favour of the PH cohort. The IH group had a mesh protrusion rate of 13 vs. 5 % in the PH group (p = 0.32), and significantly (p < 0.01) larger hernias and adhesion score, longer operating time (100 vs. 79 min) and admission time (2.8 vs. 1.6 days). Closure of the hernia defect did not influence rate of seroma, pain at 2 months, protrusion or recurrence. An overall increased complication rate was seen after defect closure (OR 3.42; CI 1.25-9.33).

CONCLUSIONS

With PH, in comparison to IH treated with LVHR, no differences were observed regarding recurrence, protrusion or complication rates. Defect closure (raphe), when using absorbable suture, did not benefit long-term outcomes and caused a higher overall complication rate. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00455299).

Laparoscopic repair reduces incidence of surgical site infections for all ventral hernias

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias remains incompletely defined. We hypothesize that laparoscopy, compared to open repair with mesh, decreases surgical site infection (SSI) for all ventral hernia types.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were reviewed to identify studies evaluating outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair with mesh of ventral hernias and divided into groups (primary or incisional). Studies with high risk of bias were excluded. Primary outcomes of interest were recurrence and SSI. Fixed effects model was used unless significant heterogeneity, assessed with the Higgins I square (I(2)), was encountered.

RESULTS

There were 5 and 15 studies for primary and incisional cohorts. No difference was seen in recurrence between laparoscopic and open repair in the two hernia groups. SSI was more common with open repair in both hernia groups: primary (OR 4.17, 95%CI [2.03-8.55]) and incisional (OR 5.16, 95%CI [2.79-9.57]).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair, compared to open repair with mesh, decreases rates of SSI in all types of ventral hernias with no difference in recurrence. These data suggest that laparoscopic approach may be the treatment of choice for all types of ventral hernias.

[Operative therapy of secondary ventral hernia: technical principles]

Secondary ventral hernia or incisional hernia occurs in at least 20 % of cases after laparotomy and most patients are symptomatic. The pathogenesis of incisional hernia is believed to be based on a defect in collagen synthesis indicating the necessity of covering the whole original incision with a non-resorbable, macroporous mesh. These meshes can be used on top of the fascia (onlay), in a retromuscular fashion (sublay) or intraperitoneally (IPOM). The IPOM technique is the preferred procedure during laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias. The clear advantage of the laparoscopic approach is the dramatically reduced rate of wound complications, especially infections. Major defects of the abdominal wall require plastic reconstruction with the component separation technique in both anterior and posterior approaches. The component separation technique must be combined with retromuscular mesh augmentation enabling a recurrence rate of less than 10 % and an acceptable morbidity to be achieved.

Laparoscopic repair of primary and incisional ventral hernias: the differences must be acknowledged: a prospective cohort analysis of 1,088 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Interpretation of the outcome after laparoscopic repair (LR) of ventral hernias presented in the literature often is based on pooled data of primary ventral hernias (PVH) and incisional ventral hernias (IVH). This prospective cohort study was performed to investigate whether this pooling of data is justified.

METHODS

The data of 1,088 consecutive patients who underwent LR of PVH or IVH were prospectively collected and reviewed for baseline characteristics, operative findings, and postoperative complications classified as Clavien grade 3 or higher.

RESULTS

The PVH group consisted of 662 patients, and the IVH group comprised 426 patients. The mean Association of American Anesthesiologists classification was higher in IVH group (1.92 vs 1.68; P ≤ 0.001), as was rate of conversion to open surgery (7 vs 0.5 %; P < 0.001). The IVH group required more adhesiolysis (76 vs 0.9 %; P < 0.001), a longer procedure (73 vs 42 min; P < 0.001), and a longer hospital stay (4.53 vs 2.43 days; P < 0.001). The recurrence rate was higher in the IVH group (5.81 vs 1.37 %; P < 0.001), as was total complication rate (18.69 vs 4.55 %; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed significant differences in baseline characteristics and operative findings between patients undergoing PVH repair and those undergoing IVH repair. Continued pooling of data on LR of IVH and PVH combined, commonly found in the current literature, seems incorrect.

Laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair is the preferred approach in obese patients

INTRODUCTION

The optimal method of umbilical hernia repair (UHR) in the obese population, laparoscopic vs open, is not standardized. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal surgical option for UHR in the obese population.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 obese patients (body mass index [BMI] >30) who underwent UHR from 2003 to 2009 at a single institution. Patients were grouped by surgical approach (open vs laparoscopic). Intraoperative and postoperative courses were compared. Follow-up in the postoperative period was obtained from patient records and telephone interviews.

RESULTS

Of the 123 patients undergoing UHR, 40 and 83 patients were operated on with the laparoscopic and open approach, respectively. Patients were well matched by demographics as well as comorbidities. No difference in the mean BMI was shown between the laparoscopic and open groups (37 vs 35, P = not significant, respectively). The operative time was significantly prolonged in the laparoscopic group (106 vs 71 minutes, P < .01). Intraoperatively, no complications occurred in either group. In the immediate postoperative period, 1 patient who underwent laparoscopic UHR was readmitted for small bowel obstruction, and 2 patients in the open group were readmitted, 1 for pain control and 1 for wound infection. Follow-up was achieved in 63% of the laparoscopic group and 58% of the open group with a mean follow-up of 15 months in the laparoscopic group and 20 months in the open group (P = not significant). A significant increase in wound infection was reported in the open group with mesh insertion when compared with the laparoscopic procedure (26% vs 4%, P < .05, respectively). No hernia recurrence was shown in the laparoscopic vs the open group with mesh insertion (0% vs 4%, P = not significant, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients, the laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly lower rate of postoperative infection and no hernia recurrence. Laparoscopic hernia repair may be the preferred option in the obese patient.