Absorbable versus non-absorbable tacks for mesh fixation in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgical techniques and effectiveness of laparoscopic resection of abdominal wall desmoid-type fibromatosis and defect reconstruction: a single-center retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

Although the treatment of abdominal wall desmoid-type fibromatosis (DF) has evolved over the past decades, surgical treatment remains an important approach. Previously, surgeries for abdominal DF were mostly performed by laparotomy, which involves massive dissection and significant trauma. Here, we report our single-center experience of the laparoscopic management of abdominal wall DF in young female patients.

METHODS

The clinical data of nine patients diagnosed with abdominal wall DF during January 2020-April 2022 at the Qilu Hospital of Shandong University were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent laparoscopic resection of abdominal wall DF and immediate abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) with mesh augmentation via the intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) technique.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic DF resection and AWR were successfully performed in all patients. The mean operation time was 175.56 ± 46.20 min. The width of abdominal wall defect was 8.61 ± 3.30 cm. Full- and partial-thickness myofascial closure and reapproximation were performed in five, two, and two patients, respectively. The average mesh size was 253.33 ± 71.01 cm2. The total and postoperative lengths of hospital stay were 11.00 ± 3.46 and 4.89 ± 2.03 days, respectively. Tumor recurred in one patient after 20 months of the resection. Nonetheless, death, herniation, or bulging were not observed in any patient during a mean follow-up of 16.11 ± 8.43 months.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of abdominal wall DF and immediate AWR with IPOM mesh reinforcement is safe and reliable for young female patients. Management of such patients should be decided according to the biological behavior, size, and location of tumors.

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).

AbsorbaTack™ vs. ProTack™ vs. sutures: a biomechanical analysis of cervical fixation methods for laparoscopic apical fixations in the porcine model

PURPOSE

Treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) often requires the use of synthetic mesh. In case of a novel and standardized bilateral apical fixation, both uterosacral ligaments are replaced by polyvinylidene-fluoride (PVDF) tapes. One of the main problems remains the fixation method, which should be stable, but also simple and quick to use. The current study evaluated biomechanical differences between the cervical tape fixation with sutures (group 1), non-absorbable tacks (group 2) and absorbable tacks (group 3) in an in vitro porcine model.

METHODS

A total of 28 trials, conducted in three groups, were performed on porcine, fresh cadaver uteri. All trials were performed until mesh, tissue or fixation device failure occurred. Primary endpoints were the biomechanical properties maximum load (N), displacement at failure (mm) and stiffness (N/mm). The failure mode was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between all three groups concerning the maximum load. Group 1 (sutures) supported a maximum load of 64 ± 15 N, group 2 (non-absorbable tacks) yielded 41 ± 10 N and group 3 (absorbable tacks) achieved 15 ± 8 N. The most common failure mode was a mesh failure for group 1 and 2 and a fixation device failure for group 3.

CONCLUSION

The PVDF-tape fixation with sutures supports 1.5 times the load that is supported by non-absorbable tacks and 4.2 times the load that is supported by absorbable tacks. Nevertheless, there was also a stable fixation through tacks. Sutures are the significantly stronger and cheaper fixation device but may prolong the surgical time in contrast to the use of tacks.

Predictive Factors of Recurrence After Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Multicentre Cohort Study

Background: The main purpose of this study was to analyze patient-related factors that may influence the risk of hernia recurrence following laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LIHR), including the potential role of chosen materials. Materials and Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted on all patients who were aged >18 years and who underwent elective laparoscopic incisional hernia mesh repair at the Departments of Surgery of the S. Anna University Hospital in Ferrara and Sassuolo Hospital in Modena, Italy. Exclusion criteria were as follows: patients undergoing an open or emergency incisional hernia repair or with primary ventral hernia. All hernia and operative variables that may favor hernia recurrence were collected and analyzed. Follow-up was conducted through a standardized telephone interview, followed by an outpatient visit and diagnostic imaging if needed. Results: From September 2002 to September 2017, 312 consecutive patients underwent elective laparoscopic incisional hernia mesh repair. At a mean 22-month follow-up, 273 patients presented no recurrence of incisional hernia and 39 had relapsed. Intra- and postoperative complications were similar between groups. Unadjusted Cox regression analysis showed a statistically significant association between both the partially absorbable mesh (P < .0001) and absorbable tacks (P = .001) and recurrence, while after adjusting for potential confounders, only the partially absorbable mesh was significantly associated with recurrence (P = .007). Conclusions: The laparoscopic approach may be considered safe for incisional hernia mesh repair. In this multicenter, retrospective cohort study, the use of a partially absorbable mesh in LIHR was the only predictor of hernia recurrence. The partially absorbable mesh that was investigated, however, has been withdrawn from the market.

An Evaluation of the Evidence Guiding Adult Midline Ventral Hernia Repair

Purpose:  Several guidelines have been published in recent years to guide the clinician in ventral hernia repair. This review distils this advice, critically assesses their evidence base, and proposes avenues for future study. Methods:  A PUBMED search identified four guidelines addressing midline ventral hernia repair published by major surgical societies between 2016 and 2020. The studies used to inform the advice have been critically appraised, including 20 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, 10 randomized controlled trials, 32 cohort studies, and 14 case series. Results:  Despite a lack of randomized controlled trials, case heterogeneity, and variation in outcome reporting, key themes have emerged. Preoperative computed tomography scan assesses defect size, loss of domain, and the likely need for component separation. Prehabilitation, frailty assessment, and risk stratification are beneficial in complex cases. Minimally invasive component separation techniques, Botox injection, and progressive pneumoperitoneum represent novel techniques to promote closure of large fascial defects. Rives-Stoppa sublay mesh repair has become the "gold" standard for open and minimally invasive repairs. Laparoscopic repair promotes early return to functional status. The enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal approach facilitates laparoscopic sublay mesh placement, avoiding mesh contact with viscera. Robotic techniques continue to evolve, although the evidence at present remains immature. Synthetic mesh is recommended for use in clean and clean-contaminated cases. However, optimism regarding the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in the contaminated setting has waned. Conclusions:  Surgical techniques in ventral hernia repair have advanced in recent years. High-quality data has struggled to keep pace; rigorous clinical trials are required to support the surgical innovation.

Robotic vs Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair with Intraperitoneal Mesh: 1-Year Exploratory Outcomes of the PROVE-IT Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh have been demonstrated previously to have comparable 30-day outcomes in the PROVE-IT randomized clinical trial. Here we report our 1-year follow-up of enrolled patients to examine exploratory outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients enrolled in a previously published, registry-based, randomized trial investigating laparoscopic vs robotic ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal mesh were reviewed. Several exploratory secondary outcomes were assessed: pain intensity (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS 3a]), hernia-specific quality of life (Hernia-Specific Quality of Life Survey [HerQLes]), composite hernia recurrence, and reoperations.

RESULTS

A total of 95% (71 of 75) follow-up was achieved: 33 laparoscopic repairs and 38 robotic repairs. Median follow-up time was 12 months [interquartile range 10 to 12 months]. Following regression analysis adjusting for baseline scores, there was no difference in postoperative pain intensity at 1 year (p = 0.94). However, HerQLes scores increased by 12.0 more points following robotic repairs compared to laparoscopic counterparts (95% CI 1.3 to 22.7, p = 0.03). Composite hernia recurrence was 6% (2 of 33) for the laparoscopic cohort and 24% (9 of 38) for the robotic group (p = 0.04). There was no difference in rates of reoperation (p = 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

Our exploratory analyses have identified potential differences in quality of life and recurrence, favoring the robotic and laparoscopic approaches, respectively. These findings warrant further study with larger patient cohorts to verify their potential significance.

Safety and efficacy of absorbable and non-absorbable fixation systems for intraperitoneal mesh fixation: an experimental study in swine

PURPOSE

Choice of the best possible fixation system in terms of safety and effectiveness for intraperitoneal mesh placement in hernia surgery remains controversial. The aim of the present study was to compare the performance of four fixation systems in a swine model of intraperitoneal mesh fixation.

METHODS

Fourteen Landrace swine were utilized in the study. The experiment included two stages. Initially, four pieces of mesh (Ventralight ™ ST) sizing 10 × 5 cm were placed and fixed intraperitoneally to reinforce 4 small full thickness abdominal wall defects created with diathermy. These defects were repaired primarily with absorbable suture before mesh implantation. Each mesh was anchored with a different tack device between Absorbatack™, Protack™, Capsure™, or Optifix™. The second stage took place after 60 days and included euthanasia, laparoscopy, and laparotomy via U-shaped incision to obtain the measurements for the outcome parameters. The primary endpoint of the study was to compare the peel strength of the compound tack/mesh from the abdominal wall. Secondary parameters were the extent and quality of visceral adhesions to the mesh, the degree of mesh shrinkage and the histological response around the tacks.

RESULTS

Thirteen out of 14 animals survived the experiment and 10 were included in the final analysis. Capsure™ tacks had higher peel strength when compared to Absorbatack™ (p = 0.028); Protack™ (p = 0.043); and Optifix™ (p = 0.009). No significant differences were noted regarding the extent of visceral adhesions (Friedman's test p value 0.854), the adhesion quality (Friedman's test p value 0.506), or the mesh shrinkage (Friedman's test p value = 0.827). Four out of the ten animals developed no adhesions at all 2 months after implantation.

CONCLUSION

Capsure™ fixation system provided higher peel strength that the other tested devices in our swine model of intraperitoneal mesh fixation. Our findings generate the hypothesis that this type of fixation may be superior in a clinical setting. Clinical trials with long-term follow-up are required to assess the safety and efficacy of mesh fixation systems in hernia surgery.

Predictive factors of recurrence for laparoscopic repair of primary and incisional ventral hernias with single mesh from a multicenter study

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) is a widely practiced treatment for primary (PH) and incisional (IH) hernias, with acceptable outcomes. Prevention of recurrence is crucial and still highly debated. Purpose of this study was to evaluate predictive factors of recurrence following LVHR with intraperitoneal onlay mesh with a single type of mesh for both PH and IH. A retrospective, multicentre study of data collected from patients who underwent LVHR for PH and IH with an intraperitoneal monofilament polypropylene mesh from January 2014 to December 2018 at 8 referral centers was conducted, and statistical analysis for risk factors of recurrence and post-operative outcomes was performed. A total of 1018 patients were collected, with 665 cases of IH (65.3%) and 353 of PH (34.7%). IH patients were older (p < 0.001), less frequently obese (p = 0.031), at higher ASA class (p < 0.001) and presented more frequently with large, swiss cheese type and border site defects (p < 0.001), compared to PH patients. Operative time and hospital stay were longer for IH (p < 0.001), but intraoperative and early post-operative complications and reinterventions were comparable. IH group presented at major risk of recurrence than PH (6.7% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001) and application of absorbable tacks resulted a significative predictive factor for recurrence increasing the risk by 2.94 (95% CI 1.18–7.31). LVHR with a light-weight polypropylene mesh has low intra- and post-operative complications and is appropriate for both IH and PH. Non absorbable tacks and mixed fixation system seem to be preferable to absorbable tacks alone.

Are the relative benefits of open versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal mesh repair of umbilical hernias dependent on the diameter of the defect?

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess whether the respective values of open and laparoscopic intraperitoneal repairs of umbilical hernias are related to the European Hernia Society diameter of defects.

METHODS

This registry-based study compared the early and 2-year outcomes of 776 open versus 1,019 consecutive laparoscopic intraperitoneal repairs performed from 2011 to 2019.

RESULTS

Intraperitoneal mesh repair, either laparoscopic or open, was found to be a safe procedure at the 2-year follow-up. The incidence of reoperated bowel obstructions was 0.3%. Compared with the open group: (1) postoperative surgical site occurrences in small (<2 cm) or medium (2-4 cm) hernias (0.3% vs 2.4%; P = .041; 1.4% vs 5.9%; P = .0002); (2) recurrence rates in large (≥4 cm) umbilical hernias (0.0% vs 8.6%; P = .0195); and (3) cumulative reoperation rates (0.9% vs 2.2%; P = .021) were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Conversely, the rate of early pain on day 1 and 1 month postsurgery was higher in the laparoscopic group, for all hernia sizes (P < .001). The rate of moderate or severe chronic pain at 2 years was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (8.1% vs 2.4%; P = .049) for small hernias.

CONCLUSION

The respective benefit to drawback ratios for open versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal repairs were related to the European Hernia Society diameter of hernia defect. In medium-large hernias, the benefits of laparoscopic repair overrode its drawbacks. In small hernias, the low recurrence rate, reduced early and chronic pain, and better rate of ambulatory surgery suggest there is still a place for open repair.

Strategies for Mesh Fixation in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: Concepts and Techniques

SUMMARY

Ventral hernias have numerous causes, ranging from sequelae of surgical procedures to congenital deformities. Patients suffering from these hernias experience a reduced quality of life through pain, associated complications, and physical disfigurement. Therefore, it is important to provide these patients with a steadfast repair that restores functionality and native anatomy. To do this, techniques and materials for abdominal wall reconstruction have advanced throughout the decades, leading to durable surgical repairs. At the cornerstone of this lies the use of mesh. When providing abdominal wall reconstruction, a surgeon must make many decisions with regard to mesh use. Along with the type of mesh and plane of placement of mesh, a surgeon must decide on the method of mesh fixation. Fixation of mesh provides an equal distribution of tension and a more robust tissue-mesh interface, which promotes integration. There exist numerous modalities for mesh fixation, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. This Special Topic article aims to compare and contrast methods of mesh fixation in terms of strength of fixation, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Methods included in this review are suture, tack, fibrin glue, mesh strip, and self-adhering modes of fixation.

Hernia width explains differences in outcomes between primary and incisional hernias: a prospective cohort study of 9159 patients

PURPOSE

Data on primary (PH) and incisional hernias (IH) are often pooled, even though several studies have illustrated that these are different entities with worse outcomes for IHs. The aim of this study is to validate previous research comparing PHs and IHs and to examine whether hernia width is an important contributor to the differences between these hernia types.

METHODS

A registry-based, prospective cohort study was performed, utilizing the French Hernia Club database. All patients undergoing PH or IH repair between September 8th 2011 and May 22nd 2019 were included. Baseline, hernia and surgical characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Outcomes were analyzed per width category (≤ 2 cm, 3-4 cm, 5-10 cm and > 10 cm).

RESULTS

A total of 9159 patients were included, of whom 4965 (54%) had PH and 4194 (46%) had IH. PHs and IHs differed significantly in 12/15 baseline characteristics, 9/10 hernia and surgical characteristics, and all outcomes. Overall, complications and re-interventions were more common in patients with IH. After correcting for width, the differences between PH and IH were no longer significant, except for medical complications, which were more common after IH repair compared to PH.

CONCLUSION

After correcting for hernia width, most outcomes do not significantly differ between PH and IH, indicating that not hernia type, but hernia width is an important factor contributing to the differences between PH and IH.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether robotic ventral hernia repair is associated with fewer days in the hospital 90 days after surgery compared with laparoscopic repair.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, blinded randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Multidisciplinary hernia clinics in Houston, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

124 patients, deemed appropriate candidates for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair, consecutively presenting from April 2018 to February 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Robotic ventral hernia repair (n=65) versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (n=59).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was number of days in hospital within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, operating room time, wound complications, hernia recurrence, reoperation, abdominal wall quality of life, and costs from the healthcare system perspective. Outcomes were pre-specified before data collection began and analyzed as intention to treat.

RESULTS

Patients from both groups were similar at baseline. Ninety day follow-up was completed in 123 (99%) patients. No evidence was seen of a difference in days in hospital between the two groups (median 0 v 0 days; relative rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 2.19; P=0.82). For secondary outcomes, no differences were noted in emergency department visits, wound complications, hernia recurrence, or reoperation. However, robotic repair had longer operative duration (141 v 77 min; mean difference 62.89, 45.75 to 80.01; P≤0.001) and increased healthcare costs ($15 865 (£12 746; €14 125) v $12 955; cost ratio 1.21, 1.07 to 1.38; adjusted absolute cost difference $2767, $910 to $4626; P=0.004). Among patients with robotic ventral hernia repair, two had an enterotomy compared none with laparoscopic repair. The median one month postoperative improvement in abdominal wall quality of life was 3 with robotic ventral hernia repair compared with 15 following laparoscopic repair.

CONCLUSION

This study found no evidence of a difference in 90 day postoperative hospital days between robotic and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. However, robotic repair increased operative duration and healthcare costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03490266.

Guidelines for treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias from the European Hernia Society and Americas Hernia Society

BACKGROUND

Umbilical and epigastric hernia repairs are frequently performed surgical procedures with an expected low complication rate. Nevertheless, the optimal method of repair with best short- and long-term outcomes remains debatable. The aim was to develop guidelines for the treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias.

METHODS

The guideline group consisted of surgeons from Europe and North America including members from the European Hernia Society and the Americas Hernia Society. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) critical appraisal checklists, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument were used. A systematic literature search was done on 1 May 2018, and updated on 1 February 2019.

RESULTS

Literature reporting specifically on umbilical and epigastric hernias was limited in quantity and quality, resulting in a majority of the recommendations being graded as weak, based on low-quality evidence. The main recommendation was to use mesh for repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias to reduce the recurrence rate. Most umbilical and epigastric hernias may be repaired by an open approach with a preperitoneal flat mesh. A laparoscopic approach may be considered if the hernia defect is large, or if the patient has an increased risk of wound morbidity.

CONCLUSION

This is the first European and American guideline on the treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias. It is recommended that symptomatic umbilical and epigastric hernias are repaired by an open approach with a preperitoneal flat mesh.