Hernias at the extraction incision after laparoscopic colon and rectal resection: Influence of incision location and use of prophylactic mesh

National survey of colorectal surgery units on abdominal wall closure

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to assess the current status and knowledge of the Spanish colorectal surgeons on the wall closure.

METHODS

A single answer questionnaire of 25 closed questions was conducted using specific software for online surveys that was distributed to a cohort of colorectal surgeons.

RESULTS

53 surgeons replied to the survey. The vast majority prefer a closure of the midlaparotomy with a very slow absorbing monofilament (67.92%) continuous suture (96.23%) in a single plane (81.13%). Mass stitches, retention systems, and loop sutures continue to be used. The most commonly used suture gauge was USP 1 (United States Pharmacopeia) (58.49%). The most commonly used needle is with a cylindrical body and a trocar tip. Only 50%, routinely perform wall closure after placement of a trocar equal to or greater than 10 mm. Almost everyone knows the 4:1 rule and thinks it should be applied, but the small bites technique is not performed. 50% would never place a prophylactic prosthesis. The closure is usually performed by the same surgeon who has performed the entire procedure. One out of five confesses not knowing the rate of incisional hernias in his unit.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of consensus and basic knowledge regarding the technical aspects of closure and the prevention of the appearance of incisional hernias. The use of slow absorbing monofilament continuous suture in a single plane seems well accepted.

Safety and efficacy of totally minimally invasive right colectomy in the obese patients: a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis

Despite the well-known benefits of the minimally invasive approach for the right colon cancer treatment, less is known about its feasibility and advantages in morbid obese patients. The aim of this study is to compare the postoperative outcomes after totally minimally invasive right colectomy between the obese and non-obese population. Data derived from a prospectively maintained multicenter colorectal database were analysed, dividing the enrolled patients into two groups: obese (BMI > 29.99) patient group and non-obese patient group. Data about gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Score, tumor characteristics, operative time, anastomosis time, extraction site, incision length, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, postoperative recovery, specimen length and retrieved nodes were taken to assess the achievement of the oncologic standards. After a propensity score matching, a total of 184 patients was included, 92 in each group. No differences were found in terms of demographic data and tumor characteristics. Intraoperative data showed a significant difference in terms of anastomosis time in favour of non-obese group (p < 0.0001). No intraoperative complications were recorded and no conversion was needed in both groups. No differences were found in terms of postoperative complications. There were no differences in terms of first mobilization (p = 0.745), time to first flatus (p = 0.241) time to tolerance to liquid and solid diet (p = 0.241 and p = 0.06) and length of hospital stay (p = 0.817). The analysis of oncologic outcomes demonstrated adequate results in both groups. The results obtained by our study confirmed the feasibility and safety of the totally minimally invasive approach even in obese population.

Implementing a protocol to prevent incisional hernia in high-risk patients: a mesh is a powerful tool

PURPOSE

The small bites (SB) technique for closure of elective midline laparotomies (EMLs) and a prophylactic mesh (PM) in high-risk patients are suggested by the guidelines to prevent incisional hernias (IHs) and fascial dehiscence (FD). Our aim was to implement a protocol combining both the techniques and to analyze its outcomes.

METHODS

Prospective data of all EMLs were collected for 2 years. Results were analyzed at 1 month and during follow-up. The incidence of HI and FD was compared by groups (M = Mesh vs. S = suture) and by subgroups depending on using SB.

RESULTS

A lower number of FD appeared in the M group (OR 0.0692; 95% CI 0.008-0.56; P = 0.01) in 197 operations. After a mean follow-up of 29.23 months (N = 163; min. 6 months), with a lower frequency of IH in M group (OR 0.769; 95% CI 0.65-0.91; P < 0.0001). (33) The observed differences persisted after a propensity matching score: FD (OR 0.355; 95% CI 0.255-0.494; P < 0.0001) and IH (OR 0.394; 95% CI 0.24-0.61; P < 0.0001). On comparing suturing techniques by subgroups, both mesh subgroups had better outcomes. PM was the main factor related to the reduction of IH (HR 11.794; 95% CI 4.29-32.39; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Following the protocol using PM and SB showed a lower rate of FD and HI. A PM is safe and effective for the prevention of both HI and FD after MLE, regardless of the closure technique used.

[Prophylaxis of parastomal, perineal and incisional hernias in colorectal surgery]

This article gives an overview of the relevant evidence from the literature on the topic of prophylactic use of meshes to prevent incisional and parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery. In addition, based on a structured literature search the incidence of hernias in colorectal surgery over the past 5 years was analyzed. A slight majority (54%) of articles recommended the use of prophylactic mesh implantation in colorectal surgery. The prophylactic use of meshes appears to reduce the risk of hernias in colorectal surgery but is associated with a slightly increased perioperative wound infection rate. Parastomal hernias are associated with higher incidence rates compared with incisional hernias and also appear to benefit more from prophylactic mesh implantation. The evidence in the literature is still unclear regarding the use of synthetic or biological implants due to the lack of randomized controlled trials. Perineal hernias were excluded from the analysis due to the incomparability of the mainly casuistic literature. An overview is given in the discussion. The analysis of the literature and also in reflection of our own experience comes to the conclusion that the disrupted integrity of the abdominal wall due to the operation should be prophylactically reinforced with a mesh after colorectal surgery. An evidence-based recommendation is not possible based on the current state of research on implantation techniques, e.g. onlay, sublay intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) and selection of the implant.

Prophylactic Mesh Placement for the Prevention of Incisional Hernia in High-Risk Patients After Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and objectives

In high-risk populations, the efficacy of mesh placement in incisional hernia (IH) prevention after elective abdominal surgeries has been supported by many published studies. This meta-analysis aimed at providing comprehensive and updated clinical implications of prophylactic mesh placement (PMP) for the prevention of IH as compared to primary suture closure (PSC).

Materials and methods

PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were systematically searched until March 3, 2020, for studies comparing the efficacy of PMP to PSC in abdominal surgeries. The main outcome of interest was the incidence of IH at different follow-up durations. All statistical analyses were carried out using Review Manager version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) and Stata 11.0 (Stata Corporation LP, College Station, TX). The data were pooled using the random-effects model, and odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

A total of 3,330 were identified initially and after duplicate removal and exclusion based on title and abstract, 26 studies comprising 3,000 patients, were included. The incidence of IH was significantly reduced for PMP at follow-up periods of one year (OR= 0.16 [0.05, 0.51]; p=0.002; I²=77%), two years (OR= 0.23 [0.12, 0.45]; p<0.0001; I²=68%), three years (OR= 0.30 [0.16, 0.59]; p=0.0004; I²= 52%), and five years (OR=0.15 [0.03, 0.85]; p=0.03; I²=87%). However, PMP was associated with an increased risk of seroma (OR=1.67 [1.10, 2.55]; p= 0.02; I²=19%) and chronic wound pain (OR=1.71 [1.03, 2.83]; p= 0.04; I²= 0%). No significant difference between the PMP and PSC groups was noted for postoperative hematoma (OR= 1.04 [0.43, 2.50]; p=0.92; I²=0%), surgical site infection (OR=1.09 [0.78, 1.52]; p= 0.62; I²=12%), wound dehiscence (OR=0.69 [0.30, 1.62]; p=0.40; I²= 0%), gastrointestinal complications (OR= 1.40 [0.76, 2.58]; p=0.28; I²= 0%), length of hospital stay (WMD= -0.49 [-1.45, 0.48]; p=0.32; I²=0%), and operating time (WMD=9.18 [-7.17, 25.54]; p= 0.27; I²=80%).

Conclusions

PMP has been effective in reducing the rate of IH in the high-risk population at all time intervals, but it is associated with an increased risk of seroma and chronic wound pain. The benefits of mesh largely outweigh the risk, and it is linked with positive outcomes in high-risk patients.

Incidence of Incisional Hernia After Emergency Subcostal Unilateral Laparotomy: Does Augmentation Prophylaxis Play a Role?

BACKGROUND

Few data are available about the frequency of incisional hernia in an emergency subcostal laparotomy. Our objective is to analyze the incidence of incisional hernia after emergency subcostal laparotomy and evaluate if prophylactic mesh could help prevent it.

METHODS

This study is a monocentric retrospective analysis following STROBE guideline statements of all patients who underwent an emergency subcostal laparotomy between January 2011 and July 2017 in our University Hospital. We compared complications and incidence of incisional hernia between patients who received sutures (Group S; N = 203) and patients with prophylactic onlay mesh (Group M; N = 80). A multivariate risk factor analysis of incisional hernia was performed. An incisional hernia-estimated risk calculator equation was created.

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients were analyzed. There were 80 patients in Group M and 203 in Group S. In short-term outcomes, length of surgery (213 ± 115 min vs 165 ± 73.3 min, P = 0.001) and hospital stay (16.4 ± 18.7 vs 11.6 days ± 13.4, P = 0.038) were longer in Group M. Long-term follow-up was conducted in 207 patients with a mean follow-up time of 39.3 ± 23 months. Incisional hernia was detected in 29 (19.1%) patients in Group S but in only two (3.8%) patients in Group M (P = 0.008). In the multivariate analysis, a risk factor analysis included wound infection (4.91 HR (2.12-11.4); P < 0.001), previous hernia repair (2.86 HR (1.24-6.61); P = 0.014), and shock (2.64 HR (1.01-6.93); P = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of incisional hernia after emergency subcostal laparotomy is high. Risk factors are wound infection, shock, and previous hernia surgery. The use of prophylactic mesh augmentation was safe and reduced the incidence of incisional hernia.

Extraction-site incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: should we carry out a study about prophylactic mesh closure?

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic mesh closure has only scarcely been studied to avoid extraction-site incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The aim was to analyze extraction-site incisional hernia incidence after laparoscopic colorectal surgery to assess if prophylactic mesh closure should be studied.

METHODS

A retrospective analytic cohort study was conducted in patients who had undergone laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an extraction-site incision. Extraction-site incisional hernia was diagnosed during clinical examination or imaging. Risk factors for extraction-site incisional hernia were analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-five patients were included. More than 80% of the patients had a malignant disease. Ninety-two patients (40.9%) underwent right colectomy. Midline extraction-site incision was used in 86 (38.2%) patients. After a mean follow-up of 2.4 years, 39 (17.3%) patients developed an extraction-site incisional hernia. Midline extraction-site incision was associated with incisional hernia when compared to transverse and Pfannenstiel incision (39.5% vs. 3.6%, OR 17.5, p < 0.001). Surgery to repair an extraction-site incisional hernia was also more frequent in the group of patients with a midline incision (10.5% vs. 1.4%, OR 8.0, p = 0.002). In the multivariate analysis, incisional hernia was associated with body mass index, high blood pressure, and midline incision.

CONCLUSIONS

Extraction-site incisional hernia was mainly related to midline incisions; therefore, midline incision should be avoided whenever possible. Studying prophylactic mesh closure for Pfannesnstiel or transverse incisions is needless, as these incisions have a low incisional hernia risk.