Laparoscopic bridging vs. anatomic open reconstruction for midline abdominal hernia mesh repair [LABOR]: single-blinded, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial on long-term functional results

Outcomes of Transversus Abdominis Release With Macroporous Polypropylene Mesh

INTRODUCTION

Transversus abdominis release (TAR) is increasingly being performed for reconstruction of complex incisional and recurrent ventral hernias, with complication rates ranging from 17.4% to 33.3% after open TAR (oTAR) or robotic TAR (rTAR). The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes of patients undergoing TAR with macroporous polypropylene mesh (MPM) and to compare outcomes between oTAR and rTAR.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 183 consecutive patients undergoing TAR with MPM performed by a single surgeon at a single institution from 2015 to 2021 was performed. Patients with less than one year of follow-up were excluded. Univariate analysis was performed to compare outcomes between oTAR and rTAR patients.

RESULTS

Average patient age was 59.4 y, median body mass index was 33.2 kg/m2, and median hernia width was 12.0 cm. Forty 2 (23%) patients underwent oTAR, 127 (69%) underwent rTAR, and 14 (8%) underwent laparoscopic TAR. Patients experienced 16.4%, 10.4%, 3.8%, and 6.0% rates of overall complications, surgical site occurrences, surgical site infections, and other complications, respectively. At average follow-up of 2.3 y, a 2.7% hernia recurrence rate was observed. In comparison to patients undergoing oTAR, rTAR patients required shorter operative times and length of stay, and were less likely to experience postoperative complications overall, and other complications. Recurrence rates were similar between oTAR and rTAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing TAR with MPM experienced complication and recurrence rates in alignment with previously published results. In comparison to oTAR, rTAR was associated with more favorable perioperative outcomes and complication rates, but similar recurrence rates.

ENGINE-An EHS Project for Future Guidelines

Clinical guidelines are evidence-based recommendations developed by healthcare organizations or expert panels to assist healthcare providers and patients in making appropriate and reliable decisions regarding specific health conditions, aiming to enhance the quality of healthcare by promoting best practices, reducing variations in care, and at the same time, allowing tailored clinical decision-making. European Hernia Society (EHS) guidelines aim to provide surgeons a reliable set of answers to their pertinent clinical questions and a tool to base their activity as experts in the management of abdominal wall defects. The traditional approach to guideline production is based on gathering key opinion leader in a particular field, to address a number of key questions, appraising papers, presenting evidence and produce final recommendations based on the literature and consensus. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method offers a transparent and structured process for developing and presenting evidence summaries and for carrying out the steps involved in developing recommendations. Its main strength lies in guiding complex judgments that balance the need for simplicity with the requirement for complete and transparent consideration of all important issues. EHS guidelines are of overall good quality but the application of GRADE method, began with EHS guidelines on open abdomen, and the increasing adherence to the process, has greatly improved the reliability of our guidelines. Currently, the need to application of this methodology and the creation of stable and dedicated group of researchers interested in following GRADE in the production of guidelines has been outlined in the literature. Considering that the production of clinical guidelines is a complex process, this paper aim to highlights the primary features of guideline production, GRADE methodology, the challenges associated with their adoption in the field of hernia surgery and the project of the EHS to establish a stable guidelines committee to provide technical and methodological support in update of previously published guideline or the creation of new ones.

A Scoping Review of Quality-of-Life Assessments Employed in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons use several quality-of-life instruments to track outcomes following abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR); however, there is no universally agreed upon instrument. We review the instruments used in AWR and report their utilization trends within the literature.

METHODS

This scoping review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases. All published articles in the English language that employed a quality-of-life assessment for abdominal wall hernia repair were included. Studies which focused solely on aesthetic abdominoplasty, autologous breast reconstruction, rectus diastasis, pediatric patients, inguinal hernia, or femoral hernias were excluded.

RESULTS

Six hernia-specific tools and six generic health tools were identified. The Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life Survey and Carolinas Comfort Scale are the most common hernia-specific tools, while the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) is the most common generic health tool. Notably, the SF-36 is also the most widely used tool for AWR outcomes overall. Each tool captures a unique set of patient outcomes which ranges from abdominal wall functionality to mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of AWR have been widely studied with several different assessments proposed and used over the past few decades. These instruments allow for patient assessment of pain, quality of life, functional status, and mental health. Commonly used tools include the Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life Survey, Carolinas Comfort Scale, and SF-36. Due to the large heterogeneity of available instruments, future work may seek to determine or develop a standardized instrument for characterizing AWR outcomes.

Comparison between the open and the laparoscopic approach in the primary ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ventral hernia repair underwent various developments in the previous decade. Laparoscopic primary ventral hernia repair may be an alternative to open repair since it prevents large abdominal incisions. However, whether laparoscopy improves clinical outcomes has not been systematically assessed.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to compare the clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus open approach of primary ventral hernias.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted in February 2023. All randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopy with the open approach in patients with a primary ventral hernia were included. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of risk ratios was performed for hernia recurrence, local infection, wound dehiscence, and local seroma. Meta-analysis for weighted mean differences was performed for postoperative pain, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and time until return to work.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall hernia recurrence was twice less likely to occur in laparoscopy (RR = 0.49; 95%CI = 0.32-0.74; p < 0.001; I2 = 29%). Local infection (RR = 0.30; 95%CI = 0.19-0.49; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), wound dehiscence (RR = 0.08; 95%CI = 0.02-0.32; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and local seroma (RR = 0.34; 95%CI = 0.19-0.59; p < 0.001; I2 = 14%) were also significantly less likely in patients undergoing laparoscopy. Severe heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on postoperative pain, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and time until return to work.

CONCLUSION

The results of available studies are controversial and have a high risk of bias, small sample sizes, and no well-defined protocols. However, the laparoscopic approach seems associated with a lower frequency of hernia recurrence, local infection, wound dehiscence, and local seroma.

Modifiable comorbidities impact on ventral hernia recurrence following robotic abdominal wall reconstruction using resorbable biosynthetic mesh: 36-month follow-up

Background

There is an ongoing debate on the role of comorbidities in hernia outcomes, particularly with minimally invasive approaches. This study evaluated the impact of modifiable comorbidities (MCMs) on 36-month hernia recurrence rates after robotic transversus abdominis release (TAR) with resorbable biosynthetic mesh underlay for primary ventral hernia repair.

Methods

A review of medical records for patients who underwent the robotic TAR procedure between January 2015 and May 2022 performed by a single surgeon was conducted. Patients were separated into three groups: those with 0, 1, and 2+ MCMs, followed by a breakdown of comorbidity types and combinations of comorbidities. MCMs included obesity, diabetes, and tobacco use. The primary outcomes included hernia recurrence at 36 months and the time between surgery and recurrence.

Results

175 patients met the inclusion criteria, with a mean hernia diameter of 12.9 ± 5.4 cm and a mean BMI of 34 ± 8 kg/m2. 9.7 % of patients experienced hernia recurrence at 36-month follow-up. No significant difference in the recurrence rate and length of time between surgery and recurrence was observed between the groups (p = .265 and p = .283, respectively). No group, single comorbidity, or a combination of comorbidities was found to have significantly increased odds of recurrence at 36 months.

Conclusion

The presence of MCMs, either alone or in combination with another, did not significantly increase the odds of hernia recurrence at 36 months following ventral hernia repair using this approach. Future studies with larger sample sizes and multiple surgeons are needed to corroborate this data.

Key message

Modifiable comorbidities have previously been shown to increase the risk of hernia recurrence after ventral hernia repair. Our study found relatively low rates of hernia recurrence and no significantly increased odds of recurrence among different comorbid groups at 36-month follow-up following robotic transversus abdominis release with resorbable biosynthetic mesh underlay.

Minimally Invasive Repair of Recurrent Inguinal Hernia: Multi-Institutional Retrospective Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery

Introduction: Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in general surgery. Despite surgical advances, recurrence and chronic pain are still major issues after this intervention. Aim of our study was to retrospectively assess and compare outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic repair of recurrent inguinal hernia. Methods: All patients who underwent recurrent inguinal hernia repair between 2014 and 2021 in five different institutions were included in our study. Baseline data on age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, smoking habit, and anticoagulant therapy were retrospectively collected from prospectively maintained databases. Operative time, length of stay, and early and late complications were compared between the robotic and the laparoscopic approach. Results: Forty-eight patients underwent recurrent inguinal hernia repair between January 2014 and December 2021. Twenty-three patients underwent a robotic procedure, whereas 25 were submitted to the laparoscopic intervention. Overall mean follow-up was 26.2 months. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics of the two groups. Acceptable and comparable rates of peri- and postoperative outcomes were recorded. However, postoperative visual analog scale score and incidence of chronic pain were lower after the robotic rather than after the laparoscopic approach. (2.9 versus 3.8 P = .002; 20% versus 0%; P = .02, respectively). Conclusions: Minimally invasive repair of recurrent inguinal hernia is safe and feasible; robotic surgery is associated with low rate of postoperative and chronic pain without a significant increase in operative time.

Transversus abdominis release (TAR) for ventral hernia repair: open or robotic? Short-term outcomes from a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare early postoperative outcomes after transversus abdominis release (TAR) for ventral hernia repair with open (oTAR) and robotic (rTAR) approach.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until October 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative short-term outcomes was performed including complications rate, operative time, length of stay, surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), SSO requiring intervention (SSOPI), systemic complications, readmission, and reoperation rates as measure outcomes.

RESULTS

Six retrospective studies were included in the analysis with a total of 831 patients who underwent rTAR (n = 237) and oTAR (n = 594). Robotic TAR was associated with lower risk of complications rate (9.3 vs 20.7%, OR 0.358, 95% CI 0.218-0.589, p < 0.001), lower risk of developing SSO (5.3 vs 11.5%, OR 0.669, 95% CI 0.307-1.458, p = 0.02), lower risk of developing systemic complications (6.3 vs 26.5%, OR 0.208, 95% CI 0.100-0.433, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (SMD - 4.409, 95% CI - 6.000 to - 2.818, p < 0.001) but longer operative time (SMD 53.115, 95% CI 30.236-75.993, p < 0.01) compared with oTAR. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of SSI, SSOPI, readmission, and reoperation rates.

CONCLUSION

Robotic TAR improves recovery by adding the benefits of minimally invasive procedures when compared to open surgery. Although postoperative complications appear to decrease with a robotic approach, further studies are needed to support the real long-term and cost-effective advantages.

Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair

BACKGROUND

The use of a mesh in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair lowers the recurrence rate  and is the accepted standard of care for larger defects. In laparoscopic primary ventral or incisional hernia repair the insertion of a mesh is indispensable. Different mesh fixation techniques have been used and refined over the years. The type of fixation technique is claimed to have a major impact on recurrence rates, chronic pain, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and complication rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of different mesh fixation techniques for primary and incisional ventral hernia repair on hernia recurrence, chronic pain, HRQOL and complications.

SEARCH METHODS

On 2 October 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid MEDLINE(R)) Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R)), Ovid Embase, and two trials registries. We also performed handsearches, and contacted experts from the European Hernia Society (EHS).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with primary ventral or incisional hernia that compared different types of mesh fixation techniques (absorbable/nonabsorbable sutures, absorbable/nonabsorbable tacks, fibrin glue, and combinations of these techniques).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in standardised piloted tables, or if necessary, directly into Review Manager 5. We assessed risks of bias with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Two review authors independently selected the publications, and extracted data on results. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. For pooling we used an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis or the Peto method in the case of rare events. We prepared GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables. For laparoscopic repair we considered absorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable tacks, and nonabsorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable sutures as key comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials with a total of 787 participants. The number of randomised participants ranged from 40 to 199 per comparison. Eight studies included participants with both primary and incisional ventral hernia. One study included only participants with umbilical hernia, and another only participants with incisional hernia. Hernia size varied between studies. We judged the risk of bias as moderate to high. Absorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable tacks Recurrence rates in the groups were similar (RR 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 3.22; 2 studies, 101 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between absorbable tacks and nonabsorbable tacks in recurrence because the certainty of evidence was very low. Evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up, chronic pain and HRQOL is negligible. Nonabsorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable sutures At six months there was one recurrence in each group (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.79; 1 study, 36 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between nonabsorbable tacks and nonabsorbable sutures in recurrence because the certainty of evidence was very low. Evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up and chronic pain is negligible. We found no study that assessed HRQOL. Absorbable tacks compared to absorbable sutures No recurrence was observed at one year (very low certainty of evidence). Early postoperative pain was higher in the tacks group (VAS 0 - 10: MD -2.70, 95% CI -6.67 to 1.27; 1 study, 48 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between absorbable tacks compared to absorbable sutures in early postoperative pain because the certainty of evidence was very low. The MD for late follow-up pain was -0.30 (95% CI -0.74 to 0.14; 1 study, 48 participants). We found no study that assessed HRQOL. Combination of different fixation types (tacks and sutures) or materials (absorbable and nonabsorbable) There were mostly negligible or only small differences between combinations (e.g. tacks plus sutures) compared to a single technique (e.g. sutures only), as well as combinations compared to other combinations (e.g. absorbable sutures combined with nonabsorbable sutures compared to absorbable tacks combined with nonabsorbable tacks) in all outcomes. It is uncertain whether there is an advantage for combining different fixation types or materials for recurrence, chronic pain, HRQOL and complications, because the evidence certainty was very low or low, or we found no study on important outcomes. Nonabsorbable tacks compared to fibrin sealant The two studies showed different directions of effects: one showed higher rates for nonabsorbable tacks, and the other showed higher rates for fibrin sealant. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up, chronic pain and HRQOL is negligible. Absorbable tacks compared to fibrin sealant One recurrence in the tacks group and none in the fibrin sealant group were noted after one year (low certainty of evidence). Early postoperative pain might be slightly lower using tacks (VAS 0 - 100; MD -12.40, 95% CI -27.60 to, 2.80;1 study, 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). The pattern of pain and HRQOL course over time (up to 1 year) was similar in the groups (low certainty of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently none of the techniques can be considered superior to any other, because the certainty of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.

Defining the characteristics of certified hernia centers in Italy: The Italian society of hernia and abdominal wall surgery workgroup consensus on systematic reviews of the best available evidences

BACKGROUND

The terms "Hernia Center" (HC) and Hernia Surgeon" (HS) have gained more and more popularity in recent years. Nevertheless, there is lack of protocols and methods for certification of their activities and results. The Italian Society of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery proposes a method for different levels of certification.

METHODS

The national board created a commission, with the task to define principles and structure of an accreditation program. The discussion of each topic was preceded by a Systematic Review, according to PRISMA Guidelines and Methodology. In case of lack or inadequate data from literature, the parameter was fixed trough a Commission discussion.

RESULTS

The Commission defined a certification process including: "FLC - First level Certification": restricted to single surgeon, it is given under request and proof of a formal completion of the learning curve process for the basic procedures and an adequate year volume of operations. "Second level certification": Referral Center for Abdominal Wall Surgery. It is a public or private structure run by at least two already certified and confirmed FLC surgeons. "Third level certification": High Specialization Center for Abdominal Wall Surgery. It is a public or private structure, already confirmed as Referral Centers, run by at least three surgeons (two certified and confirmed with FLC and one research fellow in abdominal wall surgery). Both levels of certification have to meet the Surgical Requirements and facilities criteria fixed by the Commission.

CONCLUSION

The creation of different types of Hernia Centers is directed to create two different entities offering the same surgical quality with separate mission: the Referral Center being more dedicated to clinical and surgical activity and High Specialization Centers being more directed to scientific tasks.

Ventral Hernia Management: Expert Consensus Guided by Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To achieve consensus on the best practices in the management of ventral hernias (VH).

BACKGROUND

Management patterns for VH are heterogeneous, often with little supporting evidence or correlation with existing evidence.

METHODS

A systematic review identified the highest level of evidence available for each topic. A panel of expert hernia-surgeons was assembled. Email questionnaires, evidence review, panel discussion, and iterative voting was performed. Consensus was when all experts agreed on a management strategy.

RESULTS

Experts agreed that complications with VH repair (VHR) increase in obese patients (grade A), current smokers (grade A), and patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) ≥ 6.5% (grade B). Elective VHR was not recommended for patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m (grade C), current smokers (grade A), or patients with HbA1C ≥ 8.0% (grade B). Patients with BMI= 30-50 kg/m or HbA1C = 6.5-8.0% require individualized interventions to reduce surgical risk (grade C, grade B). Nonoperative management was considered to have a low-risk of short-term morbidity (grade C). Mesh reinforcement was recommended for repair of hernias ≥ 2 cm (grade A). There were several areas where high-quality data were limited, and no consensus could be reached, including mesh type, component separation technique, and management of complex patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was consensus, supported by grade A-C evidence, on patient selection, the safety of short-term nonoperative management, and mesh reinforcement, among experts; there was limited evidence and broad variability in practice patterns in all other areas of practice. The lack of strong evidence and expert consensus on these topics has identified gaps in knowledge where there is need of further evidence.

Current Status and Challenges of Laparoscopy in Ventral Hernia Repair

Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias gained strong popularity in the late nineties with some of the early enthusiasm lost later in time. We review the current status and challenges of laparoscopy in ventral hernia repair and best practices in this area. We specifically looked at patient and hernia defect factors, technical considerations that have contributed to the successes, and some of the failures of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR). Patients best suited for a laparoscopic repair are those who are obese and diabetic with a total defect size not to exceed 10 cm in width or a "Swiss cheese" defect. Overlap of mesh to healthy fascia of at least 5 cm in every direction, with closure of the defect, is essential to prevent recurrence or bulging over time. Complications specifically related to surgical site occurrence favor the laparoscopic approach. Recurrence rates, satisfaction, and health-related quality of life results are similar to open repairs, but long-term data are lacking. There is still conflicting data regarding ways of fixating the mesh. The science of prosthetic material appropriate for intraperitoneal placement continues to evolve. The field continues to be plagued by single author, single institution, and small nonrandomized observational studies with short-term follow-up. The recent development of large prospective databases might allow for pragmatic and point-of-care studies with long-term follow-up. We conclude that LVHR has evolved since its inception, has overcome many challenges, but still needs better long-term studies to evaluate evolving practices.

Single-Access Laparoscopic Rectal Resection Versus the Multiport Technique

Background. Single-access laparoscopic surgery is not used routinely for the treatment of colorectal disease. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to compare the results of single-access laparoscopic rectal resection (SALR) versus multiaccess laparoscopic rectal resection with a mean follow-up of 24 months. Methods. This retrospective cohort study enrolled 42 patients. Between January 2010 and June 2012, 21 SALRs were performed. These patients were compared with a group of 21 other patients who had undergone multiport laparoscopic rectal resection. This control group had the same exclusion criteria and patient demographics. Short-term outcomes were reassessed with a mean follow-up of 2 years. Statistical analysis included the Student t test and Fisher’s exact test. Finally, we performed a differential cost analysis between the 2 procedures. Results. Exclusion criteria, patient demographics, and indication for surgery were similar in both groups. The conversion rate was 0% in both groups. There were no intraoperative complications or deaths. Bowel recovery was similar in both groups. No interventions, readmissions, or deaths were recorded at 30 days’ follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 24 months, all the patients with a preoperative diagnosis of cancer are still alive and disease free. Considering the selected 3 items, the mean cost per patient for single-access laparoscopic surgery and multiple-access laparoscopic surgery were estimated as 7213 and 7495 Euros, respectively. Conclusion. We think that SALR could be performed in selected patients by surgeons with high multiport laparoscopic skills. It is compulsory by law to evaluate outcomes and cost-effectiveness by using randomized controlled trials.