Emergent Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repairs

The Utilization of Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair (LVHR) in Incarcerated and Strangulated Cases: A National Trend in Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Early after its adoption, minimally invasive surgery had limited usefulness in emergent cases. However, with improvements in equipment, techniques, and skills, laparoscopy in complex and emergency operations expanded substantially. This study aimed to examine the trend of laparoscopy in incarcerated or strangulated ventral hernia repair (VHR) over time.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried for laparoscopic repair of incarcerated and strangulated hernias (LIS-VHR) and compared over 2 time periods, 2014-2016 and 2017-2019.

RESULTS

The utilization of laparoscopy in all incarcerated or strangulated VHR increased over time (2014-2016: 39.9% (n = 14 075) vs 2017-2019: 46.3% (n = 18 369), P < .001). Though likely not clinically significant, demographics and comorbidities statistically differed between groups (female: 51.7% vs 50.0%, P = .003; age 54.5 ± 13.7 vs 55.4 ± 13.8 years, P < .001; BMI 34.9 ± 8.0 vs 34.6 ± 7.8 kg/m2, P < .001). Patients from 2017 to 2019 were less comorbid (18.9% vs 16.8% smokers, P < .001; 18.2% vs 17.3% diabetic, P = .036; 4.6% vs 4.1% COPD, P = .021) but had higher ASA classification (III: 43.3% vs 45.7%; IV: 2.5% vs 2.7%, P < .001). Hernia types (primary, incisional, recurrent) were similar in each group. Operative time (89.7 ± 59.3 vs 97.4 ± 63.4 min, P < .001) became longer but length-of-stay (1.4 ± 3.3 vs 1.1 ± 2.6 days, P < .001) decreased. There was no statistical difference in surgical complications, medical complications, reoperation, or readmission rates between periods.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic VHR has become a routine method for treating incarcerated and strangulated hernias, and its utilization continues to increase over time. Clinical outcomes have remained the same while hospital stays have decreased.

Comparison of Medical Research Abstracts Written by Surgical Trainees and Senior Surgeons or Generated by Large Language Models

Importance

Artificial intelligence (AI) has permeated academia, especially OpenAI Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT), a large language model. However, little has been reported on its use in medical research.

Objective

To assess a chatbot's capability to generate and grade medical research abstracts.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 (referred to as chatbot 1 and chatbot 2) were coached to generate 10 abstracts by providing background literature, prompts, analyzed data for each topic, and 10 previously presented, unassociated abstracts to serve as models. The study was conducted between August 2023 and February 2024 (including data analysis).

Exposure

Abstract versions utilizing the same topic and data were written by a surgical trainee or a senior physician or generated by chatbot 1 and chatbot 2 for comparison. The 10 training abstracts were written by 8 surgical residents or fellows, edited by the same senior surgeon, at a high-volume hospital in the Southeastern US with an emphasis on outcomes-based research. Abstract comparison was then based on 10 abstracts written by 5 surgical trainees within the first 6 months of their research year, edited by the same senior author.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measurements were the abstract grades using 10- and 20-point scales and ranks (first to fourth). Abstract versions by chatbot 1, chatbot 2, junior residents, and the senior author were compared and judged by blinded surgeon-reviewers as well as both chatbot models. Five academic attending surgeons from Denmark, the UK, and the US, with extensive experience in surgical organizations, research, and abstract evaluation served as reviewers.

Results

Surgeon-reviewers were unable to differentiate between abstract versions. Each reviewer ranked an AI-generated version first at least once. Abstracts demonstrated no difference in their median (IQR) 10-point scores (resident, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; senior author, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; chatbot 1, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; chatbot 2, 7.0 [6.0-8.0]; P = .61), 20-point scores (resident, 14.0 [12.0-7.0]; senior author, 15.0 [13.0-17.0]; chatbot 1, 14.0 [12.0-16.0]; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-16.0]; P = .50), or rank (resident, 3.0 [1.0-4.0]; senior author, 2.0 [1.0-4.0]; chatbot 1, 3.0 [2.0-4.0]; chatbot 2, 2.0 [1.0-3.0]; P = .14). The abstract grades given by chatbot 1 were comparable to the surgeon-reviewers' grades. However, chatbot 2 graded more favorably than the surgeon-reviewers and chatbot 1. Median (IQR) chatbot 2-reviewer grades were higher than surgeon-reviewer grades of all 4 abstract versions (resident, 14.0 [12.0-17.0] vs 16.9 [16.0-17.5]; P = .02; senior author, 15.0 [13.0-17.0] vs 17.0 [16.5-18.0]; P = .03; chatbot 1, 14.0 [12.0-16.0] vs 17.8 [17.5-18.5]; P = .002; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-16.0] vs 16.8 [14.5-18.0]; P = .04). When comparing the grades of the 2 chatbots, chatbot 2 gave higher median (IQR) grades for abstracts than chatbot 1 (resident, 14.0 [13.0-15.0] vs 16.9 [16.0-17.5]; P = .003; senior author, 13.5 [13.0-15.5] vs 17.0 [16.5-18.0]; P = .004; chatbot 1, 14.5 [13.0-15.0] vs 17.8 [17.5-18.5]; P = .003; chatbot 2, 14.0 [13.0-15.0] vs 16.8 [14.5-18.0]; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, trained chatbots generated convincing medical abstracts, undifferentiable from resident or senior author drafts. Chatbot 1 graded abstracts similarly to surgeon-reviewers, while chatbot 2 was less stringent. These findings may assist surgeon-scientists in successfully implementing AI in medical research.

Advancing geriatric surgical outcomes in elective ventral and incisional hernia repair surgeries: An American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program study

INTRODUCTION

Increasing age is known to be associated with increased risk for postoperative morbidity and mortality, however, the goal of this study was to determine if an increase in age correlates to differences in surgical outcomes for elective ventral hernia repair.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using American College of Surgeons NSQIP database from 2016 to 2020. Included diagnosis codes were laparoscopic or open incisional or ventral hernia repairs, categorized into three age groups: 18-64y, 65-74y, and ≥75y. Thirty-day perioperative outcomes analyzed using bivariate χ2 test and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 116,643 people who had elective ventral or incisional hernia repair. Compared to 18-64y and 65-74y age groups, patients ≥75y were significantly more likely to develop any post-operative complication, be re-admitted post-operatively for any reason, have an extended hospital stay, and require a reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients ≥75y have significantly higher rates of perioperative complications after elective hernia repair compared to younger patients.

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.

Quality of life, post-operative complications, and hernia recurrence following enhanced-view Totally Extra-Peritoneal (eTEP) Rives-Stoppa for incisional and primary ventral hernia repair

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of life (QoL), early post-operative complications, and hernia recurrence rate following laparoscopic enhanced-view Totally Extra-Peritoneal (eTEP) Rives-Stoppa (RS) for incisional and primary ventral hernia repair. Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing eTEP-RS between 2017 and 2020. Data retrieved included demographics, and clinical and operative variables. QoL was assessed using the EuraHS-QoL scale prior to- and following eTEP-RS. During the study period, 61 patients met the inclusion criteria. Age and BMI were 62 (60.4 ± 13.8) years and 29.7 (30.4 ± 6) kg/m2, respectively. Incisional hernia was the most common pathology (n = 40, 65%) followed by primary ventral hernia (n = 21, 35%), with 24 patients (39%) having a previous hernia repair. Diastasis-recti repair was undertaken in 34 patients (55%), a concomitant inguinal hernia was repaired in 6 patients (10%), and 13 patients (21%) underwent transversus abdominis release (TAR). Median follow-up time was 13 months and 15 patients (25%) had at least 2 years of follow-up. Hernia recurrence was found in 4 patients (6.5%). Pre-operative and post-operative EuraHS-QOL questionnaire scores were available for 46 patients (75%) and showed significant improvement in pain (7 vs. 0.5, p < 0.0001; 5 vs. 0.5, p < 0.0001; 5 vs. 1.5; p < 0.006), restrictions (median of 5 vs. 0.5, p < 0.0001; 5 vs. 0, p < 0.0001; median of 5 vs. 1, p < 0.0001, of 6.5 vs. 1.5, p < 0.0001), and cosmetic appearance (8 vs. 4, p < 0.0001). Abdominal wall repair using the eTEP-RS approach significantly improves subjective QoL variables with an acceptable post-operative complications and hernia recurrence rates in a short-term follow-up.

Minimally invasive approach to incisional hernia in elective and emergency surgery: a SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies) and ISHAWS (Italian Society of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery) online survey

Minimally invasive abdominal wall surgery is growing worldwide, with a constant and fast improvement of surgical techniques and surgeons' confidence in treating both primary and incisional hernias (IH). The Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies (SICE) and the ISHAWS (Italian Society of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery) worked together to investigate state of the art in IH treatment in elective and emergency settings in Italy. An online open survey was designed, and Italian surgeons interested in abdominal wall surgery were invited to fill out a 20-point questionnaire on IH surgical procedures performed in their departments. Surgeons were asked to express their points of view on specific questions about technical and clinical variables in IH treatment. Preferred approach in elective IH surgery was minimally invasive (59.7%). Open surgery was the preferred approach in 40.3% of the responses. In emergency settings, open surgery was the preferred approach (65.4%); however, 34.5% of the involved surgeons declare to prefer the laparoscopic/endoscopic approach. Most respondents opted for conversion to open surgery in case of relevant surgical field contamination, with a non-mesh repair of abdominal wall defects. Among those that used the laparoscopic approach in the emergent setting, the majority (74%) used the size of the defect of 5 cm as a decisional cut-off. The spread of minimally invasive approaches to IH repair in emergency surgery in Italy is gaining relevance. Code-sharing through scientific societies can improve clinical practice in different departments and promote a tailored approach to IH surgery.

Chinese expert consensus on adult ventral abdominal wall defect repair and reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of patients with ventral abdominal wall defects, especially complex abdominal wall defects, remains a challenging problem for abdominal wall reconstructive surgeons. Effective surgical treatment requires appropriate preoperative assessment, surgical planning, and correct operative procedure in order to improve postoperative clinical outcomes and minimize complications. Although substantial advances have been made in surgical techniques and prosthetic technologies, there is still insufficient high-level evidence favoring a specific technique. Broad variability in existing practice patterns, including clinical pre-operative evaluation, surgical techniques and surgical procedure selection, are still common.

DATA SOURCES

With the purpose of providing a best practice algorithm, a comprehensive search was conducted in Medline and PubMed. Sixty-four surgeons considered as experts on abdominal wall defect repair and reconstruction in China were solicited to develop a Chinese consensus and give recommendations to help surgeons standardize their techniques and improve clinical results.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus serves as a starting point to provide recommendations for adult ventral abdominal wall repair and reconstruction in China and may help build opportunities for international cooperation to refine AWR practice.

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.

Impact of Body Mass Index (BMI) on perioperative outcomes following minimally invasive retromuscular abdominal wall reconstruction: a comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Morbidity and recurrence rates are higher in obese patients undergoing open abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). Historically, body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 has served as a relative contraindication to open AWR. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on outcomes after AWR for higher versus lower BMI patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted of all patients who underwent MIS AWR between September 2015 and April 2019 at our institution. Patients were subdivided into two groups based on their BMI: BMI ≤ 35 kg/m² and BMI > 35 kg/m². Patient demographics and perioperative data were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

461 patients were identified and divided into two groups: BMI ≤ 35 (n = 310) and BMI > 35 (n = 151). The two groups were similar in age (BMI ≤ 35: 56.3 ± 14.1 years vs. BMI > 35: 54.4 ± 11.9, p = .154). BMI > 35 group had more patients with ASA score of 3 (81% vs. 32%, p < .001) and comorbid conditions such as hypertension (70% vs. 45%, p < .001), diabetes mellitus (32% vs. 15%, p < .001), and history of recurrent abdominal wall hernia (34% vs. 23%, p = .008). BMI > 35 group underwent a robotic approach at higher rates (74% vs. 45%, p < .001). Patients who underwent a Rives-Stoppa repair from the higher BMI cohort also had a larger defect size (5.6 ± 2.4 cm vs. 6.7 ± 2.4 cm, p = .004). However, there were no differences in defect size in patients who underwent a transversus abdominus release (BMI ≤ 35: 9.7 ± 4.9 cm vs. BMI > 35: 11.1 ± 4.6 cm, p = .069). Both groups benefited similarly from a short length of stay, similar hospital charges, and lower postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Initial findings of our data support the benefits of elective MIS approach to AWR for patients with higher BMI. These patients derive similar benefits, such as faster recovery with low recurrence rates, when compared to lower BMI patients, while avoiding preoperative hernia incarceration, postoperative wound complications, and hernia recurrences. Future follow-up is required to establish long-term perioperative and quality of life outcomes in this patient cohort.

Perioperative and midterm outcomes of emergent robotic repair of incarcerated ventral and incisional hernia

The literature surrounding emergent robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR) is scarce. We aimed to present the results of 6 years of experience of RVHR in the emergency setting. Data were retrospectively analyzed from patients who underwent RVHR in an emergent setting between 2013 and 2019. Complications were assessed with the Clavien-Dindo (CD) and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI^®) scoring systems. Kaplan-Meier's time-to-event analysis was performed to calculate freedom-of-recurrence. Out of 589 patients who underwent RVHR, 34 patients were included. Median APACHE-II scores were 6.5. The average skin-to-skin time was 139 min. 7/34(20.5%) patients experienced minor complications (CD-grades I-II) and 4/34 (11.7%) patients experienced major complications (CD-grades III-IV). CCI^® scores ranged from 0-42.4. Only one (2.9%) patient experienced hernia recurrence. The mean postoperative follow-up was 20.5 (range 1.6-56.3) months. Emergent RVHR showed promising results in terms of midterm outcomes and overall feasibility. RVHR appears to be effective in emergency settings, however, further multicenter studies with long-term follow-up are needed.

Use of minimally invasive surgery in emergency general surgery procedures

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has demonstrated superior outcomes in many elective procedures. However, its use in emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures is not well characterized. The purpose of this study was to examine the trends in utilization and outcomes of MIS techniques in EGS over the past decade.

METHODS

The 2007-2016 ACS-NSQIP database was utilized to identify patients undergoing emergency surgery for four common EGS diagnoses: appendicitis, cholecystitis/cholangitis, peptic ulcer disease, and small bowel obstruction. Trends over time were described. Preoperative risk factors, operative characteristics, outcomes, morbidity, and trends were compared between MIS and open approaches using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

During the 10-year study period, 190,264 patients were identified. The appendicitis group was the largest (166,559 patients) followed by gallbladder disease (9994), bowel obstruction (6256), and peptic ulcer disease (366). Utilization of MIS increased over time in all groups (p < 0.001). There was a concurrent decrease in mean days of hospitalization in each group: appendectomy (2.4 to 2.0), cholecystectomy (5.7 to 3.2), peptic ulcer disease (20.3 to 11.7), and bowel obstruction (12.9 to 10.5); p < 0.001 for all. On multivariate analysis, use of MIS techniques was associated with decreased odds of 30-day mortality, surgical site infection, and length of hospital stay in all groups (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of MIS techniques in these four EGS diagnoses has increased in frequency over the past 10 years. When adjusted for preoperative risk factors, use of MIS was associated with decreased odds of wound infection, death, and length of stay. Further studies are needed to determine if increased access to MIS techniques among EGS patients may improve outcomes.

Hernia and Cancer: The Points Where the Roads Intersect

Introduction: This review aimed to present common points, intersections, and potential interactions or mutual effects for hernia and cancer. Besides direct relationships, indirect connections, and possible involvements were searched. Materials and Methods: A literature search of PubMed database was performed in July 2018 as well as a search of relevant journals and reference lists. The total number of screened articles was 1,422. Some articles were found in multiple different searches. A last PubMed search was performed during manuscript writing in December 2018 to update the knowledge. Eventually 427 articles with full text were evaluated, and 264 included, in this review. Results: There is no real evidence for a possible common etiology for abdominal wall hernias and any cancer type. The two different diseases had been found to have some common points in the studies on genes, integrins, and biomarkers, however, to date no meaningful relationship has been identified between these points. There is also some, albeit rather conflicting, evidence for inguinal hernia being a possible risk factor for testicular cancer. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapeutic modalities like chemotherapy and radiotherapy may cause postoperative herniation with their adverse effects on tissue repair. Certain specific substances like bevacizumab may cause more serious complications and interfere with hernia repair. There are only two articles in PubMed directly related to the topic of "hernia and cancer." In one of these the authors claimed that there was no association between cancer development and hernia repair with mesh. The other article reported two cases of squamous-cell carcinoma developed secondary to longstanding mesh infections. Conclusion: As expected, the relationship between abdominal wall hernias and cancer is weak. Hernia repair with mesh does not cause cancer, there is only one case report on cancer development following a longstanding prosthetic material infections. However, there are some intersection points between these two disease groups which are worthy of research in the future.