Two-year Outcomes of Prehabilitation Among Obese Patients With Ventral Hernias: A Randomized Controlled Trial (NCT02365194)

Preoperative optimization in hernia surgery: are we really helping or are we just stalling?

BACKGROUND

Managing patients with abdominal wall hernias and multiple comorbidities can be challenging because these patients are at increased risk for postoperative complications. Preoperative optimization has been used to identify and intervene upon modifiable risk factors to improve hernia repair outcomes, however, waiting to achieve optimization may cause unnecessary delays.

METHODS

We describe our approach to preoperative optimization in hernia and we review the current evidence for preoperative optimization.

CONCLUSION

Modifying risk factors before undergoing elective hernia repair can improve the overall health of patients with multiple comorbidities. However, when considering the hernia-specific data, prolonging waiting times for patients to achieve full optimization is not justified. Surgeons should take a nuanced approach to balance achieving patient optimization without unnecessarily delaying surgical care.

Obesity increases the surgical complexity and risk of recurrence after midline primary ventral hernia repair: results on 2307 patients from the French Society of hernia surgery (SFCP-CH) registry database

PURPOSE

Obesity is a known risk factor of recurrence after hernia surgery, but available data often concern pooled cases of primary and incisional hernia, with short follow-up. We aimed to analyze the impact of severe obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2) on the results of midline primary ventral hernia repair (mPVHR), in comparison with non-severely obese patients.

METHODS

Data were extracted from a multicentric registry, in which patients' data are consecutively and anonymously collected. We conducted a retrospective comparative study on patients with severe obesity (sOb) versus non-severely obese patients (non-sOb), who underwent surgery, with a minimal 2-year follow-up after their mPVHR.

RESULTS

Among 2307 patients, 267 sOb and 2040 non-sOb matched inclusion criteria. Compared with non-sOb, sOb group gathered all the worse conditions and risk factors: more ASA3-4 (39.3% vs. 10.2%; p < 0.001), symptomatic hernia (15.7% vs. 6.8%; p < 0.001), defect > 4 cm in diameter (24.3% vs. 8.8%; p < 0.001), emergency surgery (6.1% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.003), and Altemeir class > 1 (9.4% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001). Laparoscopic IPOM was used more often in sOb patients (40% vs. 32%; p = 0.016), but with smaller Hauters' ratio (46 vs. 73; p < 0.001). Compared with the non-sOb, the rate of day-case surgery was lower (48% vs. 68%; p < 0.001), the surgical site occurrences were significantly more frequent (6.4 %vs. 2.5%; p < 0.001). The main outcome, 2-year recurrence, was 5.9% in the sOb vs. 2.1% (p = 0.008), and 2-year reoperations was 3% vs. 0.3% (p = 0.006). In the adjusted analysis, severe obesity was an independent risk factor for recurrence [OR = 2.82, (95%CI, 1.45; 5.22); p = 0.003].

CONCLUSION

In patients with severe obesity, mPVHR is technically challenging and recurrence rate is three times higher than that of non-severely obese patients.

Tipping the scale in abdominal wall reconstruction: An analysis of short- and long-term outcomes by body mass index

BACKGROUND

Morbid obesity, with a body mass index 35 kg/m2, is a commonly used cutoff for denying elective transversus abdominis release. Although obesity is linked to short-term wound morbidity, its effect on long-term outcomes remains unknown, calling into question if a cutoff is justified. We sought to compare 1-year recurrence rates after transversus abdominis release based on body mass index and to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing open, clean transversus abdominis release from August 2014 to January 2022 at our institution with 1-year follow-up completed were identified. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to determine the association of body mass index with 90-day wound events, 1-year hernia recurrence, and hernia-specific quality of life. Covariates included body mass index, diabetes, recurrent hernia, hernia width, fascial closure, surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention, previous abdominal wall surgical site infection, inflammatory bowel disease, mesh weight, and mesh-to-hernia size ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 1,089 patients were included. Increasing body mass index was associated with surgical site infection (adjusted odds ratio = 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.77; P < .01) and surgical site occurrence (adjusted odds ratio = 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.74; P < .01) but was not associated with surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention. Hernia width was associated with surgical site occurrence (adjusted odds ratio = 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.82; P < .01) and surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention (adjusted odds ratio = 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.82; P = .01). Hernia recurrence rate at 1 year was lower for the body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 group (7% vs 12%; P = .02). Hernia width (odds ratio = 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.74; P = .04) was associated with recurrence; body mass index was not (P = .11). Both groups experienced significant improvement in hernia-specific quality of life at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Morbid obesity is associated with 90-day wound morbidity; however, short-term complications did not translate to higher reoperation or long-term recurrence rates. The impact of body mass index on hernia recurrence is likely overstated. An arbitrary body mass index cutoff of 35 kg/m2 should not be used to deny symptomatic patients abdominal wall reconstruction.

The Role of Robotics in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Robotic abdominal wall reconstruction is becoming an accepted technique to approach complex hernias in a minimally invasive fashion. There remain a deficit of high-quality data to suggest significant clinical benefit but current randomized trials are ongoing. Robotic surgery can be applied to a range of abdominal wall defects safely and with positive outcomes which are at least equivocal to open abdominal wall techniques.

Prehabilitation for general surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation seeks to optimize patient health before surgery to improve outcomes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted on prehabilitation, however an updated synthesis of this evidence is required across General Surgery to inform potential Supplementary discipline-level protocols. Accordingly, this systematic review of RCTs aimed to evaluate the use of prehabilitation interventions across the discipline of General Surgery.

METHODS

This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023403289), and adhered to PRISMA 2020 and SWiM guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid Embase were searched to 4 March 2023 for RCTs evaluating prehabilitation interventions within the discipline of General Surgery. After data extraction, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Quantitative and qualitative data were synthesized and analysed. However, meta-analysis was precluded due to heterogeneity across included studies.

RESULTS

From 929 records, 36 RCTs of mostly low risk of bias were included. 17 (47.2%) were from Europe, and 14 (38.9%) North America. 30 (83.3%) investigated cancer populations. 31 (86.1%) investigated physical interventions, finding no significant difference in 16 (51.6%) and significant improvement in 14 (45.2%). Nine (25%) investigated psychological interventions: six (66.7%) found significant improvement, three (33.3%) found no significant difference. Five (13.9%) investigated nutritional interventions, finding no significant difference in three (60%), and significant improvement in two (40%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation interventions showed mixed levels of effectiveness, and there is insufficient RCT evidence to suggest system-level delivery across General Surgery within standardized protocols. However, given potential benefits and non-inferiority to standard care, they should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Preoperative Optimization for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Patients requiring abdominal wall reconstruction may have medical comorbidities and/or complex defects. Comorbidities such as smoking, diabetes, obesity, cirrhosis, and frailty have been associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications. Prehabilitation strategies are variably associated with improved outcomes. Large hernia defects and loss of domain may present challenges in achieving fascial closure, an important part of restoring abdominal wall function. Prehabilitation of the abdominal wall can be achieved with the use of botulinum toxin A, and preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum.

Management of abdominal wall hernias in patients with severe obesity

Obesity is a risk factor for abdominal wall hernia development and hernia recurrence. The management of these two pathologies is complex and often entwined. Bariatric and ventral hernia surgery require careful consideration of physiologic and technical components for optimal outcomes. In this review, a multidisciplinary group of Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons' bariatric and hernia surgeons present the various weight loss modalities available for the pre-operative optimization of patients with severe obesity and concurrent hernias. The group also details the technical aspects of managing abdominal wall defects during weight loss procedures and suggests the optimal timing of definitive hernia repair after bariatric surgery. Since level one evidence is not available on some of the topics covered by this review, expert opinion was implemented in some instances. Additional high-quality research in this area will allow for better recommendations and therefore treatment strategies for these complex patients.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.

RESULTS

We included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

We found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020182813.

The effect of preoperative behaviour change interventions on pre- and post-surgery health behaviours, health outcomes, and health inequalities in adults: A systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation interventions are being delivered across surgical specialities to improve health risk behaviours leading to better surgical outcomes and potentially reduce length of hospital stay. Most previous research has focused on specific surgery specialities and has not considered the impact of interventions on health inequalities, nor whether prehabilitation improves health behaviour risk profiles beyond surgery. The aim of this review was to examine behavioural Prehabilitation interventions across surgeries to inform policy makers and commissioners of the best available evidence.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to determine the effect of behavioural prehabilitation interventions targeting at least one of: smoking behaviour, alcohol use, physical activity, dietary intake (including weight loss interventions) on pre- and post-surgery health behaviours, health outcomes, and health inequalities. The comparator was usual care or no treatment. MEDLINE, PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Clinical trials and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2021, and the MEDLINE search was updated twice, most recently in March 2023. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Outcomes were length of stay, six-minute walk test, behaviours (smoking, diet, physical activity, weight change, and alcohol), and quality of life. Sixty-seven trials were included; 49 interventions targeted a single behaviour and 18 targeted multiple behaviours. No trials examined effects by equality measures. Length of stay in the intervention group was 1.5 days shorter than the comparator (n = 9 trials, 95% CI -2.6 to -0.4, p = 0.01, I2 83%), although in sensitivity analysis prehabilitation had the most impact in lung cancer patients (-3.5 days). Pre-surgery, there was a mean difference of 31.8 m in the six-minute walk test favouring the prehabilitation group (n = 19 trials, 95% CI 21.2 to 42.4m, I2 55%, P <0.001) and this was sustained to 4-weeks post-surgery (n = 9 trials, mean difference = 34.4m (95%CI 12.8 to 56.0, I2 72%, P = 0.002)). Smoking cessation was greater in the prehabilitation group before surgery (RR 2.9, 95% CI 1.7 to 4.8, I2 84%), and this was sustained at 12 months post-surgery (RR 1.74 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.55, I2 43%, Tau2 0.09, p = 0.004)There was no difference in pre-surgery quality of life (n = 12 trials) or BMI (n = 4 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural prehabilitation interventions reduced length of stay by 1.5 days, although in sensitivity analysis the difference was only found for Prehabilitation interventions for lung cancer. Prehabilitation can improve functional capacity and smoking outcomes just before surgery. That improvements in smoking outcomes were sustained at 12-months post-surgery suggests that the surgical encounter holds promise as a teachable moment for longer-term behavioural change. Given the paucity of data on the effects on other behavioural risk factors, more research grounded in behavioural science and with longer-term follow-up is needed to further investigate this potential.

Preoperative Optimization Before Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of ventral hernia development and recurrence rates after ventral hernia repair (VHR). The metabolic derangements caused by obesity can also lead to many postoperative complications. Therefore, it is a common practice to attempt weight loss before VHR. However, there is still no consensus on optimal preoperative management for obese patients with a ventral hernia. This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of preoperative weight optimization on VHR outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies comparing obese patients who underwent surgical or non-surgical weight loss interventions before undergoing hernia repair surgery to obese patients who underwent hernia repair surgery without prehabilitation. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by means of pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 statistics.

RESULTS

One thousand six hundred nine studies were screened and 13 were thoroughly reviewed. Five studies comprising 465 patients undergoing hernia repair surgery were included. No differences in hernia recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 0.66; 95% CI 0.23-1.89; P =0.44; I 2 =20%], seroma (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.25-1.95; P =0.50; I 2 =5%), hematoma (OR 2.00; 95% CI 0.5-7.94; P =0.45; I 2 =0%), surgical site infection (OR 1.96; 95% CI 0.52-7.40; P =0.32; I 2 =0%), and overall complication (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.37-1.74; P =0.58; I 2 =40%) rates were noted when comparing patients who underwent a preoperative weight loss intervention (prehabilitation or bariatric surgery) versus those who did not. In the subgroup analysis of patients who underwent bariatric surgery, we found no difference in hernia recurrence (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.12-3.33; P = 0.59; I 2 =41%) or overall complications (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.36-3.64; P =0.82; I 2 =64%). In the subgroup analysis of patients who lost weight versus patients who did not, there was no significant difference in overall complication rates (OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.34-2.21; P =0.76; I 2 =55%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found similar hernia recurrence, seroma, hematoma, and surgical site infection rates in patients who underwent preoperative optimization. These findings underline the need for prospective studies to define the optimal role of preoperative optimization and weight loss in obese patients undergoing ventral hernia repair.

The European Hernia Society Prehabilitation Project: a systematic review of patient prehabilitation prior to ventral hernia surgery

BACKGROUND

Ventral hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide. To reduce the risk of complications, patient prehabilitation has received increasing focus in recent years. To assess prehabilitation measures, this European Hernia Society endorsed project was launched. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on patient prehabilitation prior to ventral hernia repair.

METHODS

The strategies examined were optimization of renal disease, obesity, nutrition, physical exercise, COPD, diabetes and smoking cessation. For each topic, a separate literature search was conducted, allowing for seven different sub-reviews.

RESULTS

A limited amount of well-conducted research studies evaluating prehabilitation prior to ventral hernia surgery was found. The primary findings showed that smoking cessation and weight loss for obese patients led to reduced risks of complications after abdominal wall reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

Prehabilitation prior to ventral hernia repair may be widely used; however, the literature supporting its use is limited. Future studies evaluating the impact of prehabilitation before ventral hernia surgery are warranted.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: One-year Results From a Prospective, Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) at 1-year postoperative.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Despite a relative lack of research at low risk for bias assessing robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR), the growth of RVHR has been rapid. We previously reported short-term results of the first randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR; there was no clear difference in clinical outcomes but increased operative time and cost with robotic repair.

METHODS

Patients from a multicenter, blinded randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR were followed at 1 year. Outcomes included wound complication (surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, wound dehiscence), hernia occurrence including recurrence and port site hernia, readmission, reoperation, and patient-reported outcomes (functional status, pain, and satisfaction with repair and cosmesis).

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were randomized and 113 patients (91%; 60 robot, 53 laparoscopic) completed 1-year follow-up. Baseline demographics were similar in both groups. No differences were seen in wound complication (15% vs 15%; P = 0.899), hernia recurrence (7% vs 9%; P = 0.576), or readmission (2% vs 6%; P = 0.251). No patients underwent reoperation in the robotic arm, whereas 5 (9%) did in the laparoscopic arm (P = 0.020). No differences were seen in patient-reported outcomes. Both arms reported clinically significant improvements in functional status, low pain scores, and high satisfaction scores at 1-year post repair.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that robotic ventral hernia repair is safe when compared to laparoscopy. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.