Single incision laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

Seroma prevention strategies in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) has been increasing in popularity over the years. Seroma formation is a common complication of LVHR. The aim of this study is to review the current evidence on seroma prevention strategies following LVHR.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase (1946-13 February 2019) and Medline (1946-13 February 2019) databases was conducted using terms which include "seroma", "hernia, ventral" and "laparoscopy". All studies are comparative retrospective or prospective human adult studies in peer-reviewed journals describing at least one intra-operative intervention designed to decrease the rate of seroma formation in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

RESULTS

The database searches identified 3762 citations, and 21 studies were included for final analysis. Five studies compared the different methods of mesh fixation, nine studies compared primary defect closure (PFC) and bridged repair, two studies compared the effect of different types of meshes, two studies looked into the use of electrical cauterization, one study compared single- site laparoscopy with conventional laparoscopy, one study looked into the use of fibrin sealant and one study compared transabdominal preperitoneal placement of mesh with conventional repair. PFC appears to be the most promising with large studies showing a low rate of seroma formation with additional benefits of decreasing wound infection and recurrence rate. Cauterisation of hernia sac and injection of fibrin sealant also show promising results but are mainly derived from small studies. Other strategies did not demonstrate benefit.

CONCLUSION

Currently, primary fascial closure appears to be the most promising strategy available to decrease seroma formation after LVHR based on the results of large studies. Other promising strategies that decrease dead space such as cauterisation of the sac and fibrin sealant injection will require further multicentre trials to confirm benefit before an increase in operative time and cost can be justified for their routine use.

Needlescopic Surgery Versus Single-port Laparoscopy for Inguinal Hernia

Background and Objectives:

In recent years, 2 modifications of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair—needlescopic (nTAPP) surgery and single-port (sTAPP) surgery—have greatly improved patient outcomes over traditional approaches. For a comparison of these 2 modifications, we sought to investigate and compare the extent of surgical trauma and postoperative consequences for the abdominal wall in these two procedures.

Methods:

In a retrospective study, 50 nTAPP and 35 sTAPP procedures occurring at a community hospital from November 1, 2009, through July 31, 2012 were reviewed. Intraoperative data, including length of the umbilical skin incision and operative time, were recorded. A follow-up evaluation included investigation of hernia recurrence, postoperative pain, abdominal wall mobility, cosmetic satisfaction, and period of sick leave.

Results:

The mean umbilical skin incision was 13 ± 4 mm in nTAPP vs 27 ± 3 mm in sTAPP (P < .001). The nTAPP procedure required less operating time than the sTAPP procedure (54.8 ± 16.9 minutes vs 85.9 ± 19.7 minutes; P < .001). The mean immediate postoperative pain score on the visual analog scale was 2.7 ± 2.1 in the nTAPP group and 4.4 ± 1.9 in the sTAPP group (P = .016). In addition, patients who underwent nTAPP had a shorter period of sick leave (11.2 ± 8.4 days vs 24.1 ± 20.1 days; P = .02). At the follow-up evaluation after approximately 30 months, abdominal wall mobility and cosmetic satisfaction were equally positive, with no hernia recurrence.

Conclusion:

In patients with uncomplicated inguinal hernia, the nTAPP procedure, with less surgical trauma and operating time, has distinct advantages in reduction of immediate postoperative pain and sick leave time.

Laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair: updated Consensus Development Conference based guidelines [corrected]

BACKGROUND

The Executive board of the Italian Society for Endoscopic Surgery (SICE) promoted an update of the first evidence-based Italian Consensus Conference Guidelines 2010 because a large amount of literature has been published in the last 4 years about the topics examined and new relevant issues.

METHODS

The scientific committee selected the topics to be addressed: indications to surgical treatment including special conditions (obesity, cirrhosis, diastasis recti abdominis, acute presentation); safety and outcome of intraperitoneal meshes (synthetic and biologic); fixing devices (absorbable/non-absorbable); abdominal border and parastomal hernia; intraoperative and perioperative complications; and recurrent ventral/incisional hernia. All the recommendations are the result of a careful and complete literature review examined with autonomous judgment by the entire panel. The process was supervised by experts in methodology and epidemiology from the most qualified Italian institution. Two external reviewers were designed by the EAES and EHS to guarantee the most objective, transparent, and reliable work. The Oxford hierarchy (OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. "The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence") was used by the panel to grade clinical outcomes according to levels of evidence. The recommendations were based on the grading system suggested by the GRADE working group.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The availability of recent level 1 evidence (a meta-analysis of 10 RCTs) allowed to recommend that not only laparoscopic repair is an acceptable alternative to the open repair, but also it is advantageous in terms of shorter hospital stay and wound infection rate. This conclusion appears to be extremely relevant in a clinical setting. Indications about specific conditions could also be issued: laparoscopy is recommended for the treatment of recurrent ventral hernias and obese patients, while it is a potential option for compensated cirrhotic and childbearing-age female patients. Many relevant and controversial topics were thoroughly examined by this consensus conference for the first time. Among them are the issue of safety of the intraperitoneal mesh placement, traditionally considered a major drawback of the laparoscopic technique, the role for the biologic meshes, and various aspects of the laparoscopic approach for particular locations of the defect such as the abdominal border or parastomal hernias.

Comparison of outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic inguinal herniorrhaphy and traditional three-port laparoscopic herniorrhaphy at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Evidence in the literature regarding the potential of single-incision laparoscopic (SILS) inguinal herniorrhaphy currently is limited. A retrospective comparison of SILS and traditional multiport laparoscopic (MP) inguinal hernia repair was conducted to assess the safety and feasibility of the minimally invasive laparoscopic technique.

METHODS

All laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs performed by three surgeons at a single institution during 4 years were reviewed. Statistical evaluation included descriptive analysis of demographics including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and hernia location (uni- or bilateral), in addition to bivariate and multivariate analyses of surgical technique and outcomes including operative times, conversions, and complications.

RESULTS

The study compared 129 patients who underwent SILS inguinal hernia repair and 76 patients who underwent MP inguinal hernia repair. The cases included 190 men (92.68 %) with a mean age of 55.36 ± 18.01 years (range, 8-86 years) and a mean BMI of 26.49 ± 4.33 kg/m(2) (range, 17.3-41.7 kg/m(2)). These variables did not differ significantly between the SILS and MP cohorts. The average operative times for the SILS and MP unilateral cases were respectively 57.51 and 66.96 min. For the bilateral cases, the average operative times were 81.07 min for SILS and 81.38 min for MP. A multivariate analysis using surgical approach, BMI, case complexity, and laterality as the covariates demonstrated noninferiority of the SILS technique in terms of operative time (p = 0.031). No conversions from SILS to MP occurred, and the rates of conversion to open procedure did not differ significantly between the cohorts (p = 1.00, Fisher's exact test), nor did the complication rates (p = 0.65, χ (2)).

CONCLUSIONS

As shown by the findings, SILS inguinal herniorrhaphy is a safe and feasible alternative to traditional MP inguinal hernia repair and can be performed successfully with similar operative times, conversion rates, and complication rates. Prospective trials are essential to confirm equivalence in these areas and to detect differences in patient-centered outcomes.

Single-incision laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with suprapubic incision

Single-incision laparoscopic ventral hernia repair appears to offer a virtually scarless methodology for this procedure.

Introduction:

Although natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery promises truly scarless surgery, this has not progressed beyond the experimental setting and a few clinical cases in the field of ventral hernia repair. This is mainly because of the problem of sterilizing natural orifices, which prevents the use of any prosthetic material because of unacceptable risks of infection. Single-incision laparoscopic ventral hernia repair has gained more widespread acceptance by specialized hernia centers. Even so, there is a special subset of patients who are young and/or scar conscious and find any visible scar unacceptable. This study illustrates an innovative way of performing single-incision laparoscopic ventral hernia repair by a transverse suprapubic incision below the pubic hair/bikini line in 2 young male patients who had both umbilical and epigastric hernias as well as attenuated linea alba in the upper abdomen.

Case Description:

Both patients underwent successful laparoscopic repair, and both were highly satisfied with the procedure, which produced no visible scars on their abdomen.

Discussion:

Willingness to adopt new innovative procedures, such as single-incision laparoscopic surgery, has allowed modification of the incision site to produce invisible scars and hence become highly attractive to the young and scar-phobic segment of the population.

Single-port endo-laparoscopic surgery in combined abdominal procedures

Single-port endo-laparoscopic surgery has gained support in the surgical community because it is perceived to offer a better postoperative outcome as it requires only a single incision. We write this prospective observational study to ascertain the feasibility and safety of this technique in patients otherwise requiring two operations. Five patients who underwent double procedures with a single-port device were reviewed: Case 1, a transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair and gastric wedge resection; Case 2, cholecystectomy and diaphragmatic hernia repair; Case 3, oophorectomy and incisional hernia repair; Case 4, anterior resection of the rectum and hepatic segmentectomy; and Case 5, left adrenalectomy and cholecystectomy. Patient demographics, type of port used, operative time, complications and incision length were collected. Mean operative time for the cases ranged from 100 to 315 min. Incision length for the single-port device was 2 cm. In Case 2, an additional 5-mm port was used and an intraoperative complication involving a laceration of the liver occurred during the suturing of the gallbladder fundus. An additional 8-cm lower abdominal incision (Pfannenstiel) was required in Case 4 to complete the colonic anastomosis and for specimen retrieval. Single-port endo-laparoscopic surgery is a feasible and safe technique for approaching double procedures. It drastically reduces the number of scars that a double procedure creates, and if difficulty arises, another port can always be added to ease the operation. It can also potentially reduce the number of admissions and anesthesia that a patient undergoes.

Incisional hernia rate may increase after single-port cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

The major concerns of single-port cholecystectomy are port-site hernia and cost. Essentially, a larger transumbilical incision is more likely to increase the incidence of incisional hernia. The effect of single-port cholecystectomy on hospital cost is controversial. This study evaluated single-port cholecystectomy and traditional four-port cholecystectomy with respect to perioperative outcomes, hospital cost, and postoperative complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2010 and March 2011, 52 patients underwent single-port cholecystectomy, and 111 patients underwent traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We used equal instruments in patients undergoing operation with the same surgical technique. Demographics, diagnosis, operative data, complications, length of hospital stay, and cost were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were significantly older than patients undergoing single-port cholecystectomy (55.8±13.8 years versus 48.7±12.7 years, P=.002). The trocar site hernia rate was 1.8% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and the port-site hernia rate was 5.8% in single-port cholecystectomy. This is the highest rate reported in the literature for port-site hernia following single-port cholecystectomy. Surgical techniques were not different in terms of conversion to open surgery, postoperative hospital stay, and operative time. The relative cost of single-port cholecystectomy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 1.54.

CONCLUSIONS

Although single-port cholecystectomy seems to be a feasible surgical technique, it is not superior over the traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Single-port cholecystectomy is equal to laparoscopic cholecystectomy with respect to conversion to open surgery, postoperative hospital stay, and operative time, but it is associated with high hospital cost and high port-site hernia rate.

Comparing laparoscopic mesh fixation strength between articulated and non-articulated tack devices

AIM

The iMESH Tacker™ (IMT) device is a device which simplifies laproscopic hernia repair by enabling an articulation of the device tip. The study compares the strength of mesh fixation between the IMT and another commercial tack (ACT) device - Absorbatack™ (Covidien, Corp, Mansfield, MA, USA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Strips of mesh were installed on the abodminal wall of three pigs. Half of the meshes were fixated by IMT and half by ACT. Euthanasia was done immediately to the first pig, after14 days to the second and after 27 days to the third pig. The mesh strips were pulled while fixation force was measured. Statistical analysis was done using the two tailed t-test. All mesh strips were found to be fixated. Through detachment force test, the average force in the first pig was 17.1N ± 1.9 and 16.5N ± 8.3 (IMT and ACT respectively, n/s). The average force in the second pig was 18.8N ± 7.3 and 8.4N ± 4.1 (IMT and ACT respectively, p < 0.05). The average force in the third pig was 16.3N ± 5.3 and 10.9N ± 5.9 (IMT and ACT respectively, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of IMT is both feasible and easy to learn. The study showed that IMT creates average fixation force which is higher than ACT.