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.

The influence of mesh removal during laparoscopic repair of recurrent ventral hernias on the long-term outcome

Introduction

Recurrent hernias can be treated by laparoscopy without the need for mesh removal. However, shrinkage of the mesh following recurrence affects most of the patients, and leaving a partially floating and rigid foreign body could be discussed.

Aim

To compare the outcomes of patients regarding the removal of previous mesh during laparoscopic repair of recurrent abdominal wall hernias.

Material and methods

Patients who underwent laparoscopic repair for recurrent ventral hernias between August 2012 and March 2015 were included in the study. The patients with complete removal of the mesh were included in the MR group and the patients with partial removal or without removal of the previous mesh were included in the non-MR group. Patient characteristics and demographics, previous hernia repair, defect size, mesh size, operative time, mean hospital stay, complications, recurrences, numeric pain rating scale (NRS), early termination of analgesics and prolonged use of analgesics were compared.

Results

A total of 112 patients with a mean age of 53.2 and mean body mass index of 31.1 kg/m² underwent laparoscopic repair. There were 47 patients in the MR group and 54 patients in the non-MR group. Operative time was shorter in the non-MR group (p < 0.05), whereas symptomatic seroma and NRS scores on postoperative day 10 and at the 6^th week were higher in comparison with the MR group (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Mesh removal during laparoscopic repair of recurrent ventral hernias has an association with the reduction of pain and symptomatic seroma. However, further prospective comparative studies are required to verify this view.

Outcomes of bridging versus mesh augmentation in laparoscopic repair of small and medium midline ventral hernias

BACKGROUND

Bridging of the hernia defect in laparoscopic repair (sIPOM) technique does not fully restore the abdominal wall function. Closure of hernia defect in IPOM-plus technique leads to the restoration of abdominal wall function and improved long-term treatment outcomes. Against the expectations, the studies confirm the formation of intraabdominal adhesions to the mesh. Regardless of the above, the search of the proper technique for mesh implantation and fixation is still ongoing. There have also been attempts to identify groups of patients who may still benefit from IPOM procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with midline abdominal wall hernias up to 10 cm wide were enrolled in the study except for subxiphoid and suprapubic hernias. Between 2011 and 2014 we performed 82 hernia repairs using the laparoscopic technique with Physiomesh. Patients were divided into sIPOM and IPOM-plus groups. The study included 44M and 38F patients aged 27-84 years. After 12-months and again in August 2015 a survey was posted to all patients with questions regarding potential recurrence.

RESULTS

After 12 months, eight patients (20 %) in sIPOM group reported subjectively perceived recurrence and none in IPOM-plus group (p = 0.002). Six patients (14.3 %) in sIPOM group reported suspected recurrence, as compared to three patients (7.1 %) in IPOM-plus group (p = 0.13). These patients were invited for a follow-up physical examination and sonography. Eventually, four cases of hernia recurrence were confirmed in sIPOM group (10 %) and none in IPOM-plus group (p = 0.018). Other patients presented with mesh bulging.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair is generally safe and is associated with the low recurrence rate. Closure of fascial defects before mesh insertion offers better treatment outcomes. Non-closure of fascial defects with only bridging of the hernia defect (sIPOM) causes more frequent recurrence and bulging. As a result, patient satisfaction with treatment is lower, and they are concerned about hernia recurrence.