Onlay Technique in Incisional Hernia Repair-A Systematic Review

Minimally invasive lipoabdominoplasty (MILA) tactic

While diastasis recti (DR) was long neglected by general surgeons, plastic surgeons considered conventional abdominoplasty as the only repair option. However, this scenario has changed recently, either due to a better understanding of the correlation between DR and abdominal wall function and greater risk of recurrence in abdominal hernia repairs, or due to the development of new minimally invasive techniques for repairing DR. One of these surgical procedures consists of the concept of an abdominoplasty, that is, supra-aponeurotic dissection and plication of the DR (with or without abdominal hernia) but performed through three small supra-pubic incisions by laparoscopy or robotic approach. More recently, this procedure has gained new stages. Liposuction and skin retraction technology have been associated with MIS plication of DR, which increases the indications for the technique and potentially improves results. For the first time in the literature, we describe these steps and the synergy between them.

Investigation of optimal hernia repair techniques in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

INTRODUCTION

Multiple laparotomies, immunosuppressive therapy, wound infection, and malnutrition are risk factors for incisional hernia development, which places inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients at high risk. With advances in minimally invasive techniques, this study assesses incisional hernia repair techniques and complications in the IBD population.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective review of adults with IBD who underwent incisional hernia repair from 2008 to 2022. Complications relative to operative approach and mesh placement location were assessed using descriptive and univariate statistics.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight IBD patients underwent incisional hernia repair. Fifty-two (59.1%) were on immunomodulators and 30 (34.1%) were repaired primarily. Thirty-five (39.7%) hernias recurred, of whom 19 (33%) had mesh placed. Three (30%) occurred in onlay repairs and 16 (33%) occurred in underlay repairs. Subdivision of underlay repairs into intraperitoneal, preperitoneal and retrorectus mesh placement revealed recurrence rates of 35.1%, 50%, and 14.3%, respectively. Patients with open repair were more likely to have intraoperative bowel injury (28.6% vs 9.7%, p = 0.041) and develop postoperative seromas/abscesses (12.5% vs 0%, p = 0.001) and wound complications (17.9% vs 0%, p = 0.012) compared to laparoscopic. Seromas/abscesses developed more frequently in onlay repairs compared to underlay (40% vs 2.13%, p = 0.001). Twelve (13.6%) patients presented with postoperative small bowel obstruction (SBO), 7 (58.3%) of whom had mesh placed, and 6 (85.7%) were underlay. All SBO after underlay repair had intraperitoneally placed mesh. When comparing surgeons, hernias were more likely to recur performed by colorectal surgeons compared to hernia surgeons (63.3% vs 21.3%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In IBD patients, minimally invasive approaches lead to fewer perioperative complications compared to open. Underlay mesh placement demonstrated decreased incidence of seroma/abscess formation compared to onlay. When sub-grouped, underlay placements were similar in terms of complications. Retrorectus placement, however, had fewer recurrences and no readmissions for SBO. This suggests a minimally invasive approach or placement of retrorectus mesh may provide the optimal repair in this patient population.

A novel mini-open sublay hernioplasty combined with D10 mesh for primary lumbar hernia: a retrospective analysis of 48 cases

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of a novel mini-open sublay hernioplasty with D10 mesh for primary lumbar hernias.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 48 patients with primary lumbar hernias who underwent mini-open sublay hernioplasty with D10 mesh from January 2015 to January 2022 in our hospital. Observation indicators were intraoperative measured diameter of hernia ring defect, operation time, length of hospital stay, postoperative follow-up, complications, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, chronic pain.

RESULTS

The operations were completed successfully in all 48 cases. The mean diameter of hernia ring was 2.66 ± 0.57 cm (range 1.5-3.0 cm), the mean operation time was 41.54 ± 13.21 min (range 25-70 min), the intraoperative blood loss was 9.89 ± 6.16 ml (range 5-30 ml), and the mean hospital stay was 3.14 ± 1.53 days (range 1-6 days). The mean preoperative and postoperative VAS scores at 24 h were 0.29 ± 0.53 (range 0-2) and 2.52 ± 0.61 (range 2-6), respectively. All cases were followed-up for 53.4 ± 24.3 months (range 12-96 months) without seroma, hematoma, incision or mesh infection, recurrence, and obvious chronic pain.

CONCLUSION

A novel mini-open sublay hernioplasty with D10 mesh for primary lumbar hernias is safe and feasible. Its efficacy in the short term is favorable.

Open vs. minimally invasive sublay incisional hernia repair. Is there a risk of overtreatment? EVEREG registry analysis

INTRODUCTION

Incisional hernia (IH) is a very common surgical procedure. Registries provide real world data. The objective is to analyze the open and minimally invasive (MIS) sublay technique (with or without associated components separation [CS]) in IH cases from the EVEREG registry and to evaluate the evolution over time of the techniques.

METHODS

All patients in EVEREG from July 2012 to December 2021 were included. The characteristics of the patients, IH, surgical technique, complications and mortality in the first 30 days were collected. We analyzed Group 1 (open sublay vs MIS sublay, without CS), Group 2 (open sublay vs MIS sublay, with CS) and Group 3 where the evolution of open and MIS techniques was evaluated over time.

RESULTS

4867 IH were repaired using a sublay technique. Group 1: 3739 (77%) open surgery, mostly midline hernias combined (P = .016) and 55 (1%) MIS, mostly lateral hernias (LH) (P = .000). Group 2: 1049 (21.5%) open surgery and 24 (0.5%) MIS. A meaningful difference (P = .006) was observed in terms of transverse diameters (5.9 (SD 2.1) cm for the MIS technique and 10.11 (SD 4.8) for the open technique). The LH MIS associated more CS (P = .002). There was an increase in the use of the sublay technique over time (with or without CS).

CONCLUSION

Increased use of the sublay technique (open and MIS) over time. For some type of hernia (LH) the MIS sublay technique with associated CS may have represented an overtreatment.

Open Anterior Component Separation for Complex Incisional and Ventral Hernias—When and How? Case Series Analysis

Closing the midline in patients with incisional hernias is the cornerstone for a functional reconstruction with low morbidity, low recurrence rates, and good cosmetic results, which is the ideal outcome for every hernia surgeon. However, in patients with large hernias (usually over 10 cm width) or in loss of domain cases, this goal is difficult to achieve. Anterior component separation with or without mesh reinforcement has been the procedure of choice for these patients despite its high rate of wound complications. The goal of our study is to evaluate the opportunity and necessity of the anterior component separation in patients with complex incisional or ventral hernias (defects larger than 10 cm, infected meshes). Data of patients with large incisional/ventral hernia operated using anterior component separation technique in the past 10 years were re-visited and analyzed from hospital records between January 2012 and December 2020. Demographic data (age, gender, body mass index, ASA score) and the main steps of the technique were recorded. Data were reported as mean and standard deviation. We used the anterior component separation in 66 cases, mainly for septic conditions (open abdomen, chronic and extended infections of the abdominal wall, chronic-infected meshes). For large parietal defects with aseptic local condition, we used mesh-reinforced anterior component separation (five patients). Mean age was 68.7 years. Among them, 29 patients developed wound complications (hematoma, seroma, infection). Mean hospital stay was 12.6 days. Recurrence was 18% in patients without mesh and zero in patients with mesh reinforcement after a minimum one-year follow-up. Anterior component separation is still a valid procedure in patients with large abdominal defects especially when a septic wound is to be closed. For large parietal defects, if a wide subcutaneous dissection is required, mesh-reinforced anterior component separation remains a valid alternative in abdominal wall reconstruction in certain cases (mainly aseptic conditions).

Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Resorbable Synthetic Onlay and Biologic Intraperitoneal Mesh for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A 2-Year Match-Paired Analysis

BACKGROUND

Abdominal wall reconstruction persists as a challenging surgical issue with a multitude of management strategies available. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of resorbable synthetic mesh onlay plane against biologic mesh in the intraperitoneal plane.

METHODS

A single-center, two-surgeon, 5-year retrospective review (2014 to 2019) was performed examining subjects who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction in the onlay plane with resorbable synthetic mesh or in the intraperitoneal plane with biologic mesh. A matched paired analysis was conducted. Data examining demographic characteristics, intraoperative variables, postoperative outcomes, and costs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight subjects (44 per group) were identified (median follow-up, 24.5 months). The mean age was 57.7 years, with a mean body mass index of 30.4 kg/m2. The average defect size was 292 ± 237 cm2, with most wounds being clean-contaminated (48.9 percent) and 55 percent having failed prior repair. Resorbable synthetic mesh onlay subjects were significantly less likely (4.5 percent) to experience recurrence compared to biologic intraperitoneal mesh subjects (22.7 percent; p < 0.026). In addition, mesh onlay suffered fewer postoperative surgical-site occurrences (18.2 percent versus 40.9 percent; p < 0.019) and required fewer procedural interventions (11.4 percent versus 36.4 percent; p < 0.011), and was also associated with significantly lower total costs ($16,658 ± $14,930) compared to biologic intraperitoneal mesh ($27,645 ± $16,864; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal wall reconstruction remains an evolving field, with various techniques available for treatment. When faced with hernia repair, resorbable synthetic mesh in the onlay plane may be preferable to biologic mesh placed in the intraperitoneal plane because of lower long-term recurrence rates, surgical-site complications, and costs.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Association between surgical hernia repair techniques and the incidence of seroma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Ventral hernia repair (VHR) includes the surgical reconstruction of the abdominal wall (AW) using different surgical techniques. Although such procedures are usually devoid of complications, the formation of seroma may frequently occur. We performed a systematic review to assess the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VHR techniques and their impact on seroma formation.

METHODS

We included RCTs having seroma formation as primary endpoint. We included patients of both sexes (age > 18). For data synthesis we applied a random-effects model and calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Risk of bias (ROB) and publication bias were evaluated following Cochrane recommendations.

RESULTS

After database search and article screening, 21 records were included in this review. Ten RCTs compared onlay vs. sublay mesh placement techniques. Pooled analysis showed a significantly higher risk ratio for seroma in the onlay cohort (RR = 2.61, 95% CI 1.86-3.66, I² = 0, GRADE quality of evidence, moderate). Five RCTs compared laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair vs. open mesh placement. Pooled analysis showed that seroma formation did not differ significantly between groups (RR = 1.91, 95% CI 0.69-5.28, I² = 66%, GRADE quality of evidence, poor). High ROB was found in all studies and significant publication bias was detected in both meta-analyses.

CONCLUSION

Compared to sublay ventral hernia repair, the onlay procedure is associated with a significantly higher risk of seroma. No significant differences were observed when laparoscopic VHR was compared with the open surgical procedure. Due to the diversity of surgical techniques reported in included RCTs, it is currently not possible to draw conclusive clinical recommendations. Future studies should be standardized to provide detailed data allowing thorough evaluation of the impact of the evidence on clinical practice.

Proctored preceptorship model for learning eTEP repair for inguinal hernia for general surgery residents

BACKGROUND

Enhanced-view total extra-peritoneal (eTEP) inguinal hernia repair is a technically demanding procedure with a steep learning curve.

AIM

Examine the feasibility and effectiveness of an instructor approach to teaching residents how to perform laparoscopic eTEP independently following a dedicated course of individual teaching.

METHODS

Prospective analysis of eTEP procedures performed by residents between March 2018 and September 2020. Six residents dispersed into three groups-Group A: two junior residents, Group B: two mid-level residents and Group C: two senior residents. All residents performed a unilateral IHR comprised of five core steps. Data reviewed for each procedure included the time of each step, total time and autonomy degree as assessment for every step: 1st degree-dependent (physical assistance), 2nd degree-partially dependent (vocal assistance) and 3rd degree-independent. Early and late procedures were divided at 50% of cases.

RESULTS

Participants performed 44 procedures (220 steps). Late procedures presented with a significant improvement in all degrees of autonomy (1st degree p = 0.002, 2nd degree p = 0.007 and 3rd degree p < 0.0001) and in every step (Step 1 p = 0.015, Step 2 p = 0.006, Step 3 p < 0.0001, Step 4 p < 0.0001, Step 5 p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in surgery duration between early and late procedures (p = 0.32). At early procedures, junior residents needed significantly higher rates of physical intervention (1st degree) compared to the senior residents (p = 0.004). Conversely, there was no significant difference in 2nd degree of autonomy (p = 0.46), 3rd degree (p = 0.06) and surgery duration (p = 0.16). The last three procedures performed by all participants had no significant difference between the seniority groups in autonomy (1st degree p = 0.1, 2nd degree p = 0.18 and 3rd degree p = 0.1).

CONCLUSION

Dedicated course with an individual instructor's approach is effective in achieving competence, autonomy and confidence in performing eTEP in a short time.

Wide variation in surgical techniques to repair incisional hernias: a survey of practice patterns among general surgeons

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this research was to examine the self-reported practice patterns of Canadian general surgeons regarding the elective repair of incisional hernias.

METHODS

A mail survey was sent to all general surgeons in Canada. Data were collected regarding surgeon training, years in practice, practice setting and management of incisional hernias. Surgeons were asked to describe their usual surgical approach for a patient with a midline incisional hernia and a 10 × 6 cm fascial defect.

RESULTS

Of the 1876 surveys mailed out 555 (30%) were returned and 483 surgeons indicated that they perform incisional hernia repair. The majority (62%) have been in practice > 10 years and 73% regularly repair incisional hernias. In response to the clinical scenario of a patient with an incisional hernia, 74% indicated that they would perform an open repair and 18% would perform a laparoscopic repair. Ninety eight percent of surgeons would use mesh, 73% would perform primary fascial closure and 47% would perform a component separation. The most common locations for mesh placement were intraperitoneal (46%) and retrorectus/preperitoneal (48%). The most common repair, which was reported by 37% of surgeons, was an open operation, with mesh, with primary fascial closure and a component separation.

CONCLUSIONS

While almost all surgeons who perform incisional hernia repairs would use permanent mesh, there was substantial variation reported in surgical approach, mesh location, fascial closure and use of component separation techniques. It is unclear how this variability may impact healthcare resources and patient outcomes.

[Abdominal wall hernias part 2 : Operative treatment techniques]

In accordance with the guidelines suture procedures, a preperitoneal mesh technique, the laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) or the new minimally invasive techniques, i.e. the endoscopic mini/less open sublay (E/MILOS) technique, enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair and totally endoscopic sublay (TES) repair should be used for primary abdominal wall hernias (umbilical hernia, epigastric hernia) depending on the defect size and patient characteristics (obesity, rectus abdominis muscle diastasis). For incisional hernias the sublay operation and laparoscopic IPOM continue to be the techniques most commonly used, whereby laparoscopic IPOM is being increasingly replaced by the open sublay operation and the new techniques (E/MILOS, eTEP and TES). For defects greater than 10 cm posterior component separation with transversus abdominis muscle release is becoming increasingly more established. There are also abdominal wall hernias (recurrences, lateral and combined lateral and medial defects) necessitating an open IPOM or an onlay technique.

Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate safety and efficacy of a mesh reinforcement following stoma reversal to prevent stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) and differences across the prostheses used.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until September 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and a network meta-analysis for a multiple comparison of the prostheses with each other were performed.

Results

Seven studies were included in the analysis (78.4% ileostomy and 21.6% colostomy) with a total of 1716 patients with (n = 684) or without (n = 1032) mesh. Mesh placement was associated with lower risk of SSIH (7.8%vs18.1%, OR0.266,95% CI 0.123–0.577, p < 0.001) than no mesh procedures but also with a longer operative time (SMD 0.941, 95% CI 0.462–1.421, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of Surgical Site infection (11.5% vs 11.1%, OR 1.074, 95% CI 0.78–1.48, p = 0.66), seroma formation (4.4% vs 7.1%, OR 1.052, 95% CI 0.64–1.73, p = 0.84), anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs 2.7%, OR 1.598, 95% CI 0.846–3.019, p = 0.149) and length of stay (SMD − 0.579,95% CI − 1.261 to 0.102, p = 0.096) between mesh and no mesh groups. Use of prosthesis was associated with a significant lower need for a reoperation than no mesh group (8.1% vs 12.1%, OR 0.332, 95% CI 0.119–0.930, p = 0.036). Incidence of seroma is lower with biologic than polypropylene meshes but they showed a trend towards poor results compared with polypropylene or biosynthetic meshes.

Conclusion

Despite longer operative time, mesh prophylactic reinforcement at the site of stoma seems a safe and effective procedure with lower incidence of SSIH, need for reoperation and comparable short-term outcomes than standard closure technique. A significant superiority of a specific mesh type was not identified.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10029-021-02393-w.

Second Look After Retromuscular Repair With the Combination of Absorbable and Permanent Meshes

Objective: The aim of this study is to describe the macroscopic features and histologic details observed after retromuscular abdominal wall reconstruction with the combination of an absorbable mesh and a permanent mesh.

Methods: We have considered all patients that underwent abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) with the combination of two meshes that required to be reoperated for any reason. Data was extracted from a prospective multicenter study from 2012 to 2019. Macroscopic evaluation of parietal adhesions and histological analysis were carried out in this group of patients.

Results: Among 466 patients with AWR, we identified 26 patients that underwent a reoperation after abdominal wall reconstruction using absorbable and permanent mesh. In eight patients, the reoperation was related to abdominal wall issues: four patients were reoperated due to recurrence, three patients required an operation for chronic mesh infection and one patient for symptomatic bulging. A miscellanea of pathologies was the cause for reoperation in 18 patients. During the second surgical procedures made after a minimum of 3 months follow-up, a fibrous tissue between the permanent mesh covering and protecting the peritoneum was identified. This fibrous tissue facilitated blunt dissection between the permanent material and the peritoneum. Samples of this tissue were obtained for histological examination. No case of severe adhesions to the abdominal wall was seen. In four cases, the reoperation could be carried out laparoscopically with minimal adhesions from the previous procedure.

Conclusions: The reoperations performed after the combination of absorbable and permanent meshes have shown that the absorbable mesh acts as a protective barrier and is replaced by a fibrous layer rich in collagen. In the cases requiring new hernia repair, the layer between peritoneum and permanent mesh could be dissected without special difficulty. Few intraperitoneal adhesions to the abdominal wall were observed, mainly filmy, easy to detach, facilitating reoperations.

Recurrent incisional hernia repair: surgical outcomes in correlation with body-mass index

BACKGROUND

Hernia recurrence rates after incisional hernia repair vary between 8.7 and 32%, depending on multiple factors such as patient characteristics, the use of meshes, surgical technique and the degree of experience of the treating surgeon. Recurrent hernias are considered complex wall hernias, and 20% of all incisional hernia repairs involve a recurrent hernia. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes after recurrent incisional hernia repair, in association with surgical technique and body-mass index (BMI).

METHODS

All patients who had incisional hernia repair between 2013 and 2018 were included. Primary outcome was rate of recurrent incisional hernia after initial hernia repair. Secondary outcomes were complication rate and recurrence rate in association with BMI.

RESULTS

A number of 269 patients were included, of which 75 patients (27.9%) with a recurrent incisional hernia. Recurrent hernia repair was performed in 49 patients, 83.7% underwent open repair. Complication rate for recurrent hernia repair was higher than for the initial incisional hernia repair. Of the 49 patients with recurrent hernia repair, patients with a BMI above 30 had higher complication and recurrence rates compared to patients with BMI below 30. Especially infectious complications were more common in patients with a higher BMI: 23.1% vs. 0% wound infections.

CONCLUSION

The results from this study show that complication and recurrence rates are increased after recurrent incisional hernia repair, which are further increased by obesity. Only a limited amount of literature is available on this topic, further larger multicenter studies are necessary, until then a patient-specific surgical approach based on the surgeon's expertise is recommended.

[Results of anterior abdominal wall repair with mesh implants in patients with postoperative ventral hernia]

AIM

To analyze the results of the restoration of the anterior abdominal wall in postoperative ventral hernias using mesh implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was of 680 patients, who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction using mesh implants.

RESULTS

A total of 105 postoperative complications (15.44%) in 84 (12.35%) patients; the postoperative period was without complications in 596 (87.65%) patients. The greatest number of complications was noted after laparoscopic IPOM - 13 patients (20.31%); the smallest - after posterior component separation - 24 (7.5%). Also described 10 systemic complications: 8 of which were stopped by conservative therapy, in 2 cases repeated surgical intervention was required with a change in the type of wall reconstruction. Statistical analysis did not show statistically significant differences in the incidence of complications between the different versions of the performance of hernioplasty, except for the posterior muscular plastics. Statistical analysis also showed a link between the likelihood of various complications and the type of ventral hernia repair.

CONCLUSION

Conducting different methods abdominal wall reconstruction using mesh implants is techniques with a low level of postoperative complications and comparable results when performing various types of plastics.

A fistulating incarcerated incisional hernia: a case report

An incisional hernia is usually a defect in the scar of an abdominal surgery. The natural history is intestinal obstruction with the risk of strangulation. We report a case of a long-term conservative management of an incisional hernia with an abdominal corset. This resulted in fistulation from pressure necrosis that required an en-bloc excision of the incarcerated fistulating bowel with the hernia sac. The defect was managed using the Jenkin's 'mass closure' technique with no recurrence of the hernia.

Drain tube use in incisional hernia repair: a national survey

PURPOSE

There is debate regarding the use of drain tubes in incisional hernia repair. This has become topical in Australia, with a court judge suggesting that drain tubes are mandatory. There continues to be a lack of evidence to support generalised decision-making regarding the use of drain tubes.

METHODS

The general surgeon membership of General Surgeons Australia (GSA) were surveyed regarding incisional hernia repair, their use of drains, and the decision-making behind their use.

RESULTS

A total of 196 surgeons' survey responses were analysed. Most surgeons perform less than 20 incisional hernia repairs per year (78%), prefer an open approach (78%), and preferably perform a pre-peritoneal (sub-lay) repair (53%). There was a variety of approaches to leaving a drain, with the most common answer being "sometimes" (31.28%) and an equal number of surgeons claiming to always or never leaving a drain (11.79% each). There was also no consensus in the duration the drain should stay in, with most surgeons averaging less than 5 days. Interestingly, there was a range of views on the effects of drain tubes, with some surgeons believing drains decreased infections and more believing they increased infections. Most surgeons felt seromas were decreased, but there was increased post-operative pain. The majority of surgeons agreed there was no evidence to support their beliefs.

CONCLUSION

Placement of drain tubes is not universally practiced by the general surgeons who participated in the survey. The lack of evidence is reflected by a varied approach to incisional hernia repair and the use of drain tubes.

Retromuscular Mesh Repair Using Extended Totally Extraperitoneal Repair Minimal Access: Early Outcomes of an Evolving Technique-A Single Institution Experience

Background: Enhanced-view extended totally extraperitoneal repair (eTEP) technique for laparoscopic retromuscular ventral hernia (VHR) repair is a novel application recently described by some authors. We present our early single institution experience on this technique. Methods: Retrospective review of the eTEP technique for laparoscopic retromuscular VHR repair cases at our institution from October 2018 to June 2019 with 1 month follow-up was evaluated. Data analyses include patients characteristics, operative details, and complications. Results: A total of 18 patients were treated with eTEP. One patient was reoperated using the same procedure and hospital stay was 6 days. The same patient who had undergone transversus abdominis release developed a seroma that could be observed 20 days after surgery. Conclusion: Our short-term experience with eTEP access suggests feasibility of this approach in accordance with results from other authors. We do not think the technique is challenging, but it is necessary for it to be performed by surgeons with skills in laparoscopic abdominal wall reconstruction.

Small and Laterally Placed Incisional Hernias Can be Safely Managed with an Onlay Repair

INTRODUCTION

In meta-analyses and systematic reviews, clear advantages have been identified for the sublay versus onlay technique for treatment of incisional hernias. Nonetheless, an expert panel has noted that the onlay mesh location may be useful in certain settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

First, unadjusted analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry was performed to compare 6797 sublay operations with 1024 onlay operations for repair of incisional hernias. Then, using propensity score matching to account for the influence of variables age, gender, ASA score, BMI, risk factors, preoperative pain, defect size, and defect localization, 1016 pairs were formed and compared with each other.

RESULTS

Unadjusted analysis revealed that the onlay operation was used significantly more often for small defects, lateral defect localization, and in women. After comparing the propensity score-matched pairs, no significant difference was found between the sublay and onlay technique in the outcome criteria intra- and postoperative complications, general complications, complication-related reoperations, pain at rest, pain on exertion, chronic pain requiring treatment, and recurrence on 1-year follow-up. But that was true only for this carefully selected patient collective.

CONCLUSION

In a selected patient collective with small and lateral incisional hernias and with a large proportion of women, outcomes obtained for the onlay and sublay techniques do not differ significantly.

Recurrent Incisional Hernia Repair-An Overview

Introduction: Recurrent incisional hernias with a rate of around 20% account for a relatively large proportion of all incisional hernias. It is difficult to issue any binding recommendations on optimum treatment in view of the relatively few studies available on this topic. This review now aims to collate the data available on recurrent incisional hernia. Material and Methods: A systematic search of the available literature was performed in January 2019 using Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Springer Link, and the Cochrane Library, as well as a search of relevant journals and reference lists. For the present analysis, 47 publications were identified as relevant. Results: There are mainly case series available on the treatment of recurrent incisional hernia. Eight evaluable case series and two prospective comparative studies report on treatment of between 27 and 85 recurrent hernias. After primary open repair of incisional hernia and defect sizes of < 8-10 cm, the recurrence operation can be performed in laparoscopic technique provided the surgeon has sufficient experience in that procedure. That also applies to multiple recurrences after exclusively open repair. There are no evaluable data on a repeat laparoscopic approach after minimally invasive repair of primary incisional hernia. Such an approach should only be chosen by very experienced laparoscopic surgeons and based on a well-founded indication. Further data are urgently needed on treatment of recurrent incisional hernia. Conclusion: Very little data are available on the treatment of recurrent incisional hernia. Based on the tailored approach concept, a laparoscopic approach undertaken by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon can be recommended for recurrent hernias after primary open repair and for defects of up to 8-10 cm.

What Do We Know About the Chevrel Technique in Ventral Incisional Hernia Repair?

Introduction: In publications on ventral incisional hernia repair, the Chevrel technique and the onlay operation are often equated. This present review now aims to present the difference between these surgical techniques and analyze the findings available on the Chevrel technique.

Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the available literature was performed in January 2019 using Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Springer Link, and the Cochrane Library, as well as a search of relevant journals, books, and reference lists. Thirty-four publications were identified as relevant for this review. For assessment of the Chevrel-technique with other surgical procedures there are no randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective comparative studies available but only case series. In the majority of case series the follow-up procedure is not reported.

Results: In the onlay technique the defect is closed with direct suture or it is omitted altogether. Whereas, in the Chevrel technique this is done with sliding myofascial flaps harvested from the rectus sheaths. In the few case series available this appears to result in a lower recurrence rate for the Chevrel technique compared with the onlay technique. However, the rates of postoperative complications, surgical site occurrences (SSOs), surgical site infections (SSIs), seroma, and skin necrosis are as high as in the onlay technique. The reason for this is that both techniques require subcutaneous undermining with severance of perforator vessels.

Conclusion: If mesh placement in onlay position has been chosen for specific reasons, preference can be given to the Chevrel technique over the standard onlay technique, although the study quality is limited.

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.