What's New in the Management of Incarcerated Hernia

Prospective comparison of two surgical approaches for incarcerated and strangulated inguinal hernia: preperitoneal hernioplasty through the lower abdominal median incision and laparoscope (TAPP)

The optimal surgical approach of incarcerated and strangulated inguinal hernia is controversial. Retrospective studies showed that surgical approaches through lower abdominal median incision or laparoscopic are superior to the oblique inguinal incision, respectively. Whether transabdominal laparoscopic approach is superior to the lower abdominal median incision approach needs prospective research.Prospective comparative study of patients with incarcerated and strangulated groin hernia admitted to Jinshan hospital for emergency surgery from January 2018 to June 2022. They were divided into two groups according to different surgical approach. The open preperitoneal repair group (OPR) was operated through the lower abdominal median incision. Laparoscopic preperitoneal repair group (TAPP) was completed under transabdominal laparoscope. The perioperative complications and long-term results of the two groups were compared and analyzed. Eighty-two patients met the inclusion criteria, 40 in OPR group and 42 in TAPP group. Baseline data of the two groups were comparable. Thirteen cases (15.9%) of the two groups underwent intestinal resection and anastomosis. Seventy cases (90.2%) underwent the 1st stage mesh repair, including 5 cases of preperitoneal hernioplasty after intestinal resection. The average operation time of TAPP group was 13 min longer (60.7 ± 13.7 min vs 47.8 ± 19.8 min P < 0.001), and the visual analogue scale pain score at 24 h after operation was lower (3.5 ± 1.2 vs 4.4 ± 1.7 P = 0.019) than that of OPR group. There was 1 case of bladder injury (2.5%) in OPR group and 1 case of inferior abdominal artery injury (2.4%) in TAPP group. There was no difference in the rate of the 1st stage hernioplasty between the two groups. In OPR group, 2 cases (5%) extended the incision for more than 2 cm, while in TAPP group, 1 case (2.4%) converted to laparotomy. The time of hospital stay (3.2 ± 1.8 d vs 4.3 ± 2.7 d, P = 0.036) and return to normal activities (7.9 ± 2.7 d vs 11.0 ± 4.4 d, P < 0.001) were shorter in TAPP group. The rate of total postoperative complications including chronic pain, surgical-site infection, seroma, hernia recurrence and so on was 11.9% in TAPP group, which was not significantly different from 25% in OPR group (P = 0.212). There were no cases of mesh related infection and death within 30 days in both groups.TAPP is safe and feasible for the operation of acute incarcerated inguinal hernia. TAPP had better comfort and faster recovery over open preperitoneal repair for the appropriate patients with incarcerated/strangulated inguinal hernia, which can reduce acute pain, shorten hospital stay and return to normal activities earlier.

Association of social vulnerability with receipt of hernia repair in Texas

BACKGROUND

The effect of social health determinants on hernia surgery receipt is unclear. We aimed to assess the association of the social vulnerability index with the likelihood of undergoing elective and emergency hernia repair in Texas.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort analysis of the Texas Hospital Inpatient Discharge Public Use Data File and Texas Outpatient Surgical and Radiological Procedure Public Use Data File from 2016 to 2019. Patients ≥18 years old with inguinal or umbilical hernia were included. Social vulnerability index and urban/rural status were merged with the database at the county level. Patients were stratified based on social vulnerability index quartiles, with the lowest quartile (Q1) designated as low vulnerability, Q2 and Q3 as average, and Q4 as high vulnerability. Wilcoxon rank sum, t test, and χ2 analysis were used, as appropriate. The relative risk of undergoing surgery was calculated with subgroup sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Of 234,843 patients assessed, 148,139 (63.1%) underwent surgery. Compared to patients with an average social vulnerability index, the low social vulnerability index group was 36% more likely to receive surgery (relative risk: 1.36, 95% CI 1.34-1.37), whereas the high social vulnerability index group was 14% less likely to receive surgery (relative risk: 0.86, 95% CI 0.85-0.86). This remained significant after stratifying for age, sex, insurance status, ethnicity, and urban/rural status (P < .05). For emergency admissions, there was no difference in receipt of surgery by social vulnerability index.

CONCLUSION

Vulnerable patients are less likely to undergo elective surgical hernia repair, even after adjusting for demographics, insurance, and urbanicity. The social vulnerability index may be a useful indicator of social determinants of health barriers to hernia repair.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

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.

Laparoscopic vs. Open Approach in Emergent Inguinal Hernia: Our Experience and Review of Literature

There is currently no consensus or homogeneous recommendation about the role of the laparoscopic approach in emergent inguinal hernia surgery. The aim of this manuscript is showing our experience and results of laparoscopic approach for emergent groin hernia repair comparing with open approach. A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database between January 2011 and December 2021 of acute incarcerated groin hernia that were operated at Virgen del Rocio University Hospital. In this period, they were identified 463 patients with groin hernia that required an emergency repair. 454 patients underwent open surgery (group 1) and 36 patients underwent laparoscopic approach (TAPP procedure) (group 2). Median length stay was 1 day in lap group and 2 days in open approach. Reintervention was necessary in 20 cases (4.40%) from group 1 and one (2.27%) from group 2. In laparoscopic approach, no mortality was described but in open approach, 10 patients (2.20%) died. Globally, 58 cases (12.77%) from group 1 and six patients (16.66%) from group 2 presented any complication. Wound infection was higher in group of open repairs (5.94% vs. 2.77%). Non-surgical complications were higher in open approach (19 vs. 0). There is no statistical significance in any of these items. Laparoscopic approach is a safe, feasible and effective therapeutic option for the treatment of incarcerated groin hernia that require emergency surgery, but prospective and randomized comparative studies are needed to establish the best approach.

Differences in in-hospital outcomes and healthcare utilization for laparoscopic versus open approach for emergency inguinal hernia repair: a nationwide analysis

PURPOSE

There has been a growing debate of whether laparoscopic or open surgical techniques are superior for inguinal hernia repair. For incarcerated and strangulated inguinal hernias, the laparoscopic approach remains controversial. This study aims to be the first nationwide analysis to compare clinical and healthcare utilization outcomes between laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair in an emergency setting.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample was performed. All patients who underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) and open inguinal hernia repair (OIHR) between October 2015 and December 2019 were included. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes include post-operative complications, ICU admission, length of stay (LOS), and total admission cost. Two approaches were compared using univariate and multivariate logistic and linear regression.

RESULTS

Between the years 2015 and 2019, 17,205 patients were included. Among these, 213 patients underwent LIHR and 16,992 underwent OIHR. No difference was observed between laparoscopic and open repair for mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95% CI [0.25, 2.61], p = 0.714). Additionally, there was no significant difference between groups for post-operative ICU admission (OR 1.11, 95% CI [0.74, 1.67], p = 0.614), post-operative complications (OR 1.09, 95% CI [0.76, 1.56], p = 0.647), LOS (mean difference [MD]: -0.02 days, 95% CI [- 0.56, 0.52], p = 0.934), or total admission cost (MD: $3,028.29, 95% CI [$- 110.94, $6167.53], p = 0.059).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is comparable to the open inguinal hernia repair with respect to low rates of morbidity, mortality as well as healthcare resource utilization.

Mortality after emergency versus elective groin hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency groin hernia repair is associated with increased mortality risk, but the actual risk is unknown. Therefore, this review aimed to investigate 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality in adult patients who had undergone emergency or elective groin hernia repair.

METHODS

This review was reported following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and a protocol (CRD42021244412) was registered to PROSPERO. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL in April 2021. Studies were included if they reported 30- or 90-day mortality following an emergency or elective groin hernia repair. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible, and subgroup analyses were made for bowel resection, sex, and hernia type. According to the study design, the risk of bias was assessed using either the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies with 30,740 patients receiving emergency repair and 457,253 receiving elective repair were included. The 30-day mortality ranged from 0-11.8% to 0-1.7% following emergency and elective repair, respectively. The risk of 30-day mortality following emergency repair was estimated to be 26-fold higher than after elective repair (RR = 26.0, 95% CI 21.6-31.4, I2 = 0%). A subgroup meta-analysis on bowel resection in emergency repair estimated 30-day mortality to be 7.9% (95% CI 6.5-9.3%, I2 = 6.4%). Subgroup analyses on sex and hernia type showed no differences regarding the mortality risk in elective surgery. However, femoral hernia and female sex significantly increased the risk of mortality in emergency surgery, both given by a risk ratio of 1.7.

CONCLUSION

The overall mortality after emergency groin hernia repair is 26-fold higher than after elective repair, but the increased risk is attributable mostly to female and femoral hernias.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO protocol (CRD42021244412).

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 in emergency for the treatment of acute incarcerated groin hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive approach for acute incarcerated groin hernia repair is still debated. To clarify this debate, a literature review was performed.

METHODS

Search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, founding 28,183 articles.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles, and 433 patients were included (16 bilateral hernia, range 3-8). Three hundred and eighty-eight (75.3%) and 103 patients (22.9%) underwent transabdominal preperitoneal and totally extraperitoneal repair, respectively, and in 5 patients, the defect was buttressed with broad ligament (1.1%) (not specified in 3 patients). Herniated structures were resected in 48 cases (range 1-9). Intraoperative complications and conversion occurred in 4 (range 0-1) and 10 (range 0-3) patients, respectively. Mean operative time and hospital stay ranged between 50 and 147 min, and 2 and 7 days, respectively. Postoperative complications ranged between 1 and 19. Five studies compared laparoscopic and open approaches (163 and 235 patients). Herniated structures were resected in 19 (11.7%) and 42 cases (17.9%) for laparoscopic and open approach, respectively (p = 0.1191). Intraoperative complications and conversion occurred in one (0.6%) and 5 (2.1%) patients (p = 0.4077), and in two (1.2%) and 19 (8.1%) patients (p = 0.0023), in case of laparoscopic or open approach, respectively. Mean operative time and hospital stay were 94.4 ± 40.2 and 102.8 ± 43.7 min, and 4.8 ± 2.2 and 11 ± 3.1 days, in laparoscopic or open approach, respectively. Sixteen (9.8%) and 57 (24.3%) postoperative complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy seems to be a safe and feasible approach for the treatment of acute incarcerated groin hernia. Further studies are required for definitive conclusions.

Feasibility of Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Hernioplasty for Incarcerated Inguinal Hernia

Background/Objectives:

An incarcerated inguinal hernia (IncIH) is defined as an irreducible inguinal hernia. The problems caused by long-term incarceration are adhesion between the incarcerated organ and hernial sac and difficulty in reduction of the edematous incarcerated organ. The present study was performed to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) hernioplasty to treat chronic IncIH.

Methods:

This retrospective study included 154 patients aged >20 years who were treated for IncIH from January 1, 2015 to October 31, 2020. Patients were categorized into those with symptoms for ≥ 3 months (chronic IncIH group, 134 patients) and those with symptoms for < 3 months (acute IncIH group, 20 patients).

Results:

The type of incarcerated organ differed between groups. The most frequently incarcerated organ was the intestine (85%, 17/20) in the acute IncIH group and the omentum (98%, 131/134) in the chronic IncIH group (p < 0.000). Compared with the chronic IncIH group, the acute IncIH group had a higher prevalence of pre-operative inguinal pain (85%, 17/20 vs 3%, 4/134; p < 0.000) and a lower prevalence of adhesion between the incarcerated organ and the hernial sac (5%, 1/20 vs 37%, 49/134; p = 0.011). Organ resection was performed in 1 patient in the acute IncIH group and 19 in the chronic IncIH group.

Conclusion:

In patients with chronic IncIH, TAPP hernioplasty was used to successfully resolve adhesion between the incarcerated organ and the hernial sac, avoiding organ resection by enabling intra-abdominal reduction in many patients. TAPP hernioplasty may be a feasible surgical method for the treatment of IncIH.

Comparison of Midterm Outcomes Between Open and Robotic Emergent Ventral Hernia Repair

Background. There are no studies on the role of robotics in emergency ventral hernia repair (EVHR). We aimed to compare outcomes of robotic EVHR (REVHR) and open (OEVHR). Methods. We performed a retrospective study of EVHRs performed between 2013 and 2019. Patients who underwent ventral hernia repair in an elective setting and patients who had concomitant non-abdominal wall procedures were excluded. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results. In all, 43 patients underwent OEVHR as compared to 35 patients who underwent REVHR. The patients in both groups were similar in terms of hernia etiology as well as Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. Mean operative times for the robotic group were almost 2-fold compared with those of the open group (139 minutes vs 70 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Median length of stay (LOS) did not differ between the groups (3 days for both groups; P = .488). Major complications (P = .001), morbidity scores (P = .006), surgical site events (SSEs) (P = .045), and procedural interventions (P = .020) were found higher in the open group. No differences in freedom of recurrence were found (P = .662). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that open repair was associated with a 4-fold risk for the development of complications as compared to robotic repair (P = .025; odds ratio (OR) = 4, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.193-13.444). Conclusion. Compared to OEVHR, REVHR resulted in longer operative times and lower morbidity, including SSEs and related interventions. However, neither LOS nor recurrence differed between the groups.