Seroma prevention strategies in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a systematic review

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).

Peritoneal Bridging Versus Nonclosure in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

Postoperative seroma and pain are common problems following laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair of ventral hernias. These adverse outcomes may be avoided by dissecting and using the peritoneum in the hernial sac to bridge the hernia defect.

Methods

This was a patient- and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-design, randomized controlled trial comparing nonclosure and peritoneal bridging approaches in patients scheduled for elective midline ventral hernia repair. The primary endpoint was seroma volume on ultrasonography. The secondary endpoints were postoperative pain, recurrence, and complications.

Results

Between November 2018 and December 2020, 112 patients were randomized, of whom 60 were in the nonclosure group and 52 were in the peritoneal bridging group. The seroma volume in the nonclosure and peritoneal bridging groups were 17 cm3 (6-53 cm3) versus 0 cm3 (0-26 cm3) at 1-month follow-up (P = 0.013). The median volume was zero at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups in both groups. No significant differences were observed in early postoperative pain (P = 0.447) and in recurrence rate (P = 0.684). There were 4 (7%) and 1 (2%) perioperative complications that lead to reoperations in simple IPOM (sIPOM) and IPOM with peritoneal bridging (IPOM-pb), respectively.

Conclusions

Seroma was less prevalent after IPOM-pb at 1-month follow-up compared with sIPOM, with similar postoperative pain 1 week after index surgery in both groups. At subsequent follow-ups, the differences in seroma were not statistically significant. Further studies are required to confirm these results. Trial registration (NCT04229940).

Influence of the hernia sac treatment method on the occurrence of seroma after laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair

PURPOSE

To determine whether transection of the hernia sac during laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP) affects the occurrence of seroma, and to explore the risk factors for seroma.

METHODS

In total, 330 consecutive male patients with indirect inguinal hernia who underwent TAPP repair at the Qingdao University Affiliated Hospital from January 2020 to June 2021 were retrospectively enrolled in this study. According to the intraoperative hernia sac treatment, patients were divided into a completely reduced sac group and a transected sac group.

RESULTS

Among the 330 inguinal hernia male patients, 240 received hernia sac reduction and 90 received hernia sac transection. Fifty-four patients developed seroma, with an incidence of 16.4%. In patients with a hernia defect measuring ≥3 cm and extension into the scrotum, the difference in the incidence of seroma between the two treatment groups approached significance (P = 0.052). The risk factors for seroma, high body mass index, hernia sac ≥3 cm, extension of the hernia into the scrotum and operation time were significantly associated with postoperative seroma.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the incidence of seroma after TAPP was as high as 16.4%. For patients with a hernia sac that is too large and descended extends into the scrotum, transection may be better than complete dissection of the hernia sac and preventive measures should be taken for patients with high body mass index, hernia sac measuring ≥3 cm, and a high risk of the hernia extending into the scrotum.

Pitfalls and complications of enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal approach to abdominal wall reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal access technique (eTEP) to minimally invasive retromuscular abdominal wall reconstruction is a relatively novel technique that has continued to gain popularity. There is a paucity of information regarding the prevention and management of eTEP complications. We reviewed the literature to evaluate the complications reported with eTEP ventral hernia repair and discuss the main complications associated with this technique.

METHODS

A literature search via PubMed was performed focusing on eTEP ventral hernia repair. Based on the available literature and own practice experience, the authors discuss key strategies for preventing and managing complications associated with the eTEP approach.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty studies were identified. Forty-seven studies were fully reviewed and twenty-four were included in this review. The technical details of the technique were described as performed by the authors. Postoperative complications were classified into different categories and discussed separately.

CONCLUSION

As the eTEP approach continues to gain popularity, it is essential to consider its unique complications. A focus on prevention with anatomical bearings and sound surgical technique is paramount.

Non-closure of the Free Peritoneal Flap During Laparoscopic Hernia Repair of Lower Abdominal Marginal Hernia: A Retrospective Analysis

Background: During lower abdominal marginal hernia repair, the peritoneal flap is routinely freed to facilitate mesh placement and closed to conclude the procedure. This procedure is generally called trans-abdominal partial extra-peritoneal (TAPE). However, the necessity of closing the free peritoneal flap is still controversial. This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of leaving the free peritoneal flap in-situ. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 68 patients (16 male, 52 female) who underwent laparoscopic hernia repair between June 2014 and March 2021. Patients were diagnosed as the lower abdominal hernia and all required freeing the peritoneal flap during the operation. Patients were divided into 2 groups: one group was TAPE group with the closed free peritoneal flap, another group left the free peritoneal flap unclosed. Analyses were performed to compare both intraoperative parameters and postoperative complications. Results: There were no significant differences in demographic, comorbidity, hernia characteristics and ASA classification. The intra-operative bleeding volume, visceral injury, hospital stay, urinary retention, visual analog scale (VAS) score, dysuria, intestinal obstruction, surgical site infection, mesh infection, recurrence rate and hospital stay were similar among the two groups. Mean operative time of the flap closing procedure was higher than for patients with the free peritoneal flap left in-situ (p = 0.002). Comparisons of postoperative complications showed flap closure resulted in a higher incidence of seroma formation (p = 0.005). Conclusion: Providing a barrier-coated mesh is used during laparoscopic lower abdominal marginal hernia repair, it is safe to leave the free peritoneal flap in-situ and this approach may prevent the occurrence of seromas.

Intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The ideal location for mesh placement in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) is still up for debate. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) to evaluate the outcomes of patients who received intraperitoneal mesh versus those that received extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive VHR.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus from inception to May 3, 2021. We selected studies comparing intraperitoneal mesh versus extraperitoneal mesh placement in minimally invasive VHR. A meta-analysis was done for the outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence. A subgroup analysis was conducted for a subset of studies comparing patients who have undergone intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus extended totally extraperitoneal approach (e-TEP).

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies (2320 patients) were identified. We found no statistically significant difference between patients who received intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh for outcomes of SSI, seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence [(RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.60-4.27), (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.68-2.81), (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.45-3.72), (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.69-2.86), and (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.22-6.63), respectively]. The subgroup analysis had findings similar to the overall analysis.

CONCLUSION

Based on short-term results, extraperitoneal mesh does not appear to be superior to intraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. The choice of mesh location should be based on the current evidence, surgeon, and center experience as well as individualized to each patient.

Fascial defect closure versus bridged repair in laparoscopic ventral hernia mesh repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Several studies have examined effectiveness of primary fascial defect closure (FDC) versus bridged repair (no-FDC) during laparoscopic ventral hernia mesh repair (LVHMR). The purpose of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyse randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared safety and effectiveness of two techniques.

METHODS

Systematic literature searches (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and CINAHL) were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines using predefined terms. RCTs comparing FDC and no-FDC in LVHMR were identified and retrieved. Primary outcomes were risk of recurrence and risk of major complications analyzed as a single composite outcome. Secondary outcomes were risks of seroma formation, clinical or radiologically confirmed eventration, incidence of readmission to hospital, postoperative changes in quality of life (QoL), and postoperative pain. Random effects modeling to summarize statistics were performed. The risk of bias was assessed using Cohrane's Risk of Bias tool 2.

RESULTS

Three RCTs that enrolled total of 259 patients were included. There was clinical heterogeneity present between studies related to patients' characteristics, hernia characteristics, and operative techniques. There was no difference found in primary outcomes, risks of seroma formation, eventration, and chronic pain. There is conflicting evidence on how both techniques affect postoperative QoL or early postoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques were detected to have equal safety profile and do not differ in risk of recurrence, seroma formation, risks of clinical or radiological eventration. Giving uncertainty and clinical equipoise, another RCT examining FDC vs no-FDC laparoscopic mesh repair separately for primary and secondary hernias using narrow inclusion criteria for hernia size on well-defined population would be ethical and pragmatic.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021274581.

Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair using intraperitoneal onlay mesh with peritoneal bridging

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of a novel IPOM procedure with peritoneal bridging (IPOM-pb) for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair, and to compare the outcomes of this procedure with IPOM with- (IPOM-plus) and IPOM without (sIPOM) defect closure.

Method

A single-centre retrospective study comparing a novel IPOM technique with peritoneal bridging (IPOM-pb) with the two commonly used IPOM techniques, IPOM with defect closure (IPOM-plus) and without defect closure (sIPOM). The intraoperative and postoperative data of patients who underwent laparoscopic IPOM ventral hernia repair were reviewed. Preoperative data, recurrence, and postoperative seroma, surgical site infection, and pain, were compared.

Results

From January 2017 to June 2020, a total of 213 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair with IPOM technique. The mean length and width of the ventral hernia was 4.4 ± 1.8 cm and 3.6 ± 1.4 cm, respectively, and the mean BMI was 30.1 ± 5.2 kg/m². The mean operating time was 67 ± 28 min and was longer for IPOM-pb (71 ± 27 min), less for IPOM-plus (63 ± 28 min), and least for sIPOM (61 ± 26 min). The incidence of early postoperative seroma was least in IPOM-pb (1/98, 1%), and similar in the IPOM-plus (4/94, 4%) and sIPOM (1/21, 5%) group. Late postoperative seroma was found only in IPOM-plus (2, 2%). The incidence of early and late postoperative pain was relatively higher in sIPOM (3, 14%; 1, 5%, respectively) compared to IPOM-pb and IPOM-plus in the early (5, 5% and 6, 6%) and late (2, 2% and 1, 1%) postoperative period, respectively. Surgical site infection was higher in sIPOM group (3, 14%), compared to IPOM-pb (1, 1%), and IPOM-plus (3, 3%). Recurrence rates were similar in IPOM-pb group (3/98, 3%) and IPOM-plus (3/94, 3%), and none in sIPOM (0/21).

Conclusion

IPOM with peritoneal bridging is as feasible and safe as conventional IPOM with defect closure and simple non-defect closure. However, a large randomised controlled trial is required to confirm this finding.

Essential anatomical landmarks in placement of an adequate size mesh for a successful ventral hernia repair

Safe and effective hernia repair requires a surgeon to have the appropriate knowledge necessary to learn details of the surgical technique. Long-term results of treatment, even with the use of synthetic implants, have shown that recurrences were still a significant clinical problem concerning up to every fourth patient. Therefore, it was pointed out that the mere presence of synthetic material is not a solitary circumstance sufficient for a successful repair. A key finding in recurrence prevention has been to focus surgeons' attention on the relationship between the size of the hernia orifice and the mesh surface. An optimal ratio of these values has not been established yet, however, it is considered that the mesh surface area should be at least sixteen times larger than the area of the abdominal wall defect. In cases of medium and large hernias, in order to place an extensive mesh sheet in the appropriate anatomical space of the abdominal wall, an extensive dissection needs to be performed, including several different compartments. Therefore, a surgeon undertaking a hernia repair needs to know perfectly the anatomy and function of all the myofascial structures involved. Performing an incorrect dissection of a mistaken structure may lead to catastrophic abdominal deformities. Depriving the patient of the natural support of the abdominal wall provided by the muscles may lead to total or partial destabilization of the trunk and lead to disability. In this paper a detailed description of anatomical structures and its practical use has been presented.

Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open incisional hernia repair: early outcomes from the Prospective Hernia Study

PURPOSE

To provide a comparative analysis of short-term outcomes after open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted (RAS) ventral incisional hernia (VIH) repairs that include subject-reported pain medication usage and hernia-related quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

Subjects were ≥ 18 years old and underwent elective open, laparoscopic or RAS VIH repair without myofascial release. Perioperative clinical outcomes through 30 days were analyzed as were prescription pain medication use and subject-reported responses to the HerQLes Abdominal QOL questionnaire. Observed differences in baseline characteristics were controlled using a weighted propensity score analysis to obviate potential selection bias (inverse probability of treatment weighting, IPTW). A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Three hundred and seventy-one subjects (RAS, n = 159; open, n = 130; laparoscopic, n = 82) were enrolled in the study across 17 medical institutions within the United States. Operative times were significantly different between the RAS and laparoscopic groups (126.2 vs 57.2, respectively; p < 0.001). Mean length of stay was comparable for RAS vs laparoscopic (1.4 ± 1.0 vs 1.4 ± 1.1, respectively; p = 0.623) and differed for the RAS vs open groups (1.4 ± 1.0 vs 2.0 ± 1.9, respectively; p < 0.001). Conversion rates differed between RAS and laparoscopic groups (0.6% vs 4.9%; p = 0.004). The number of subjects reporting the need to take prescription pain medication through the 2-4 weeks visit differed between RAS vs open (65.2% vs 79.8%; p < 0.001) and RAS vs laparoscopic (65.2% vs 78.75%; p < 0.001). For those taking prescription pain medication, the mean number of pills taken was comparable for RAS vs open (23.3 vs 20.4; p = 0.079) and RAS vs laparoscopic (23.3 vs 23.3; p = 0.786). Times to return to normal activities and to work, complication rates and HerQLes QOL scores were comparable for the RAS vs open and RAS vs laparoscopic groups. The reoperation rate within 30 days post-procedure was comparable for RAS vs laparoscopic (0.6% vs 0%; p = 0.296) and differed for RAS vs open (0.6% vs 3.1%; p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term outcomes indicate that open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted approaches are effective surgical approaches to VIH repair; however, each repair technique may demonstrate advantages in terms of clinical outcomes. Observed differences in the RAS vs laparoscopic comparison are longer operative time and lower conversion rate in the RAS group. Observed differences in the RAS vs open comparison are shorter LOS and lower reoperation rate through 30 days in the RAS group. The operative time in the RAS vs open comparison is similar. The number of subjects requiring the use of prescription pain medication favored the RAS group in both comparisons; however, among subjects reporting a need for pain medication, there was no difference in the number of prescription pain medication pills taken. While the study adds to the body of evidence evaluating the open, laparoscopic, and RAS approaches, future controlled studies are needed to better understand pain and QOL outcomes related to incisional hernia repair.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02715622.

Are laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repairs truly comparable?: A propensity-matched study in large ventral hernias

BACKGROUND

The merits of laparoscopic (LVHR) and open preperitoneal ventral hernia repair (OPPVHR) have been debated for more than 2 decades. Our aim was to determine peri-operative and long-term outcomes in large hernias.

METHODS

A prospective, institutional database at a tertiary hernia center was queried for patients undergoing LVHR and OPPVHR. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed for hernia defect size and follow-up.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fifty-two LVHR and OPPVHR patients were identified with defect sizes closely matched between laparoscopic (182.0 ± 110.0 cm²) and open repairs (178.3 ± 99.8 cm²), p = 0.64. LVHR and OPPVHR patients were comparable: mean age 57.2 ± 12.1 vs 56.6 ± 12.0 years (p = 0.52), BMI: 32.9 ± 6.6 vs 32.0 ± 7.4 kg/m² (p = 0.16), diabetes 19.0% vs 19.7% (p = 0.87), and smoking history 8.7% vs 23.0% (p < 0.001), respectively. OPPVHR had higher number of recurrent hernias (14.2% vs 44.9%, p < 0.001), longer operative time (168.1 ± 64.3 vs 186.7 ± 67.7 min, p = 0.006), and more components separation (0% vs 20.3%, p < 0.001). Mean mesh size was larger (p < 0.001) in the open group (634.4 ± 243.4 cm² vs 841.8 ± 277.6 cm²). The hernia recurrence rates were similar (10.8% vs 9.2%, p = 0.62), with average follow-up of 39.3 ± 32.5 vs 40.0 ± 35.0 months (p = 0.89). Length of stay was higher in the OVHR cohort (5.4 ± 3.0 vs 6.3 ± 3.6 days, p < 0.001), but 30-day readmission rates (4.0% vs 6.4%, p = 0.31) were similar. Overall wound infection rate (2.9% vs 8.4%, p = 0.03) was higher in the OPPVHR group, but the mesh infection rate was similar between LVHR (1.7%) and OPPVHR (0.6%) (p = 0.33). Postoperative pain (41.1% vs 41.4%, p = 0.95) and overall QOL based on the Carolinas Comfort Scale at 6 months (p = 0.73) and 5-years (p = 0.36) were similar.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and open preperitoneal repair for large ventral hernias have equivalent hernia recurrence rates, postoperative pain, and QOL on long-term follow-up. Patients undergoing OPPVHR were more likely to be recurrent, complex, require components separation, and more likely to develop postoperative wound complications.

Using local hemostatic to prevent seromas in patients with large incisional hernias randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to compare the results of single-blind a randomized controlled trial on the use of the local hemostatic agent Haemoblock and ultrasound monitoring of postoperative wounds in patients after the large incisional hernias repair.

METHODS

The study represented a single-blind randomized controlled trial. The total number of patients was 66. Group with Haemoblock (A) and the Group without Haemoblock (B) included 33 patients each. Operation-sublay retromuscular repair with mesh prolene implant. We applied Haemoblock 15 ml retromuscularly and 15 ml subcutaneousely in group A. Wounds were drained by vacuum suction drainage. Postoperatively - ultrasound monitoring of postoperative wounds.

RESULTS

Median of follow-up was 33 days. Significant differences were obtained in the duration of wound draining, 2.6 ± 0.6 days in group A versus 4.1 ± 0.9 days in group B (p = 0.002). In group A, the levels of C-reactive protein and albumin were less in the separated discharge, as well as its total amount. During the first 12 days, a significantly lower volume of fluid collections was detected in patients of group A than in patients of group B. We noted a more rapid subsidence of exudative processes in postoperative wounds in patients from group A. The number of punctures was significantly higher in group B (0.8 ± 1.0 vs. 0.2 ± 0.4, respectively, p = 0.003). The total number of puncture interventions in group A was six in six patients, versus 27 in 14 patients in group B (p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

The use of the local hemostatic agent Haemoblock can reduce the duration of the postoperative wound draining, shorten the period of inflammatory exudative processes in the postoperative wound, significantly reduce the number of puncture interventions for the postoperative wound, reduce the risk of the seromas formation and surgical site infections (SSI) associated with seroma, reduce the severity of pain and the need for analgesics.