Polyester composite versus PTFE in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

Polyester vs polypropylene, do mesh materials matter? A meta-analysis and systematic review

Purpose

Controversy exists regarding the outcomes following ventral hernia repair with polypropylene (PP) or polyester (PET) mesh. Monofilament PP less frequently requires extraction in the setting of contamination compared to multifilament PET mesh. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical outcomes of ventral hernia repair with PP and PET mesh.

Patients and methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed using the Ovid search platform. Criteria included ventral hernia repair publications using either PP or PET mesh with a minimum follow-up duration of one year. Included studies were subject to data extraction including mesh position, weight, recurrence rates, infection, and complications. Random effect meta-analysis was run to provide pooled event rate and 95% CI.

Results

Ninety-seven studies including a total of 10,022 patients were included in the final analysis. Hernia recurrence rates are similar (4.8%, 95% CI [3.5–6.5] vs 4.7%, 95% CI [3.7–6.0]) as well as mesh infection rates (3.5%, 95% CI [2.5–4.9] vs 5.0%, 95% CI [3.9–6.3]) between PET and PP, respectively. Mesh infections occurred less frequently in laparoscopic repair compared to open (1.6%, 95% CI [0.9–2.6] vs 5.2%, 95% CI [4.3–6.3]).

Conclusion

This study suggests that mesh material does not affect recurrence or infection in ventral hernia repair and that surgery can be safely performed with both PP and PET mesh. A laparoscopic approach is associated with a decreased infection rate compared to open repair independent of mesh type.

A systematic methodological review of non-randomised interventional studies of elective ventral hernia repair: clear definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed

BACKGROUND

Ventral hernias (VHs) often recur after surgical repair and subsequent attempts at repair are especially challenging. Rigorous research to reduce recurrence is required but such studies must be well-designed and report representative and comprehensive outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assesses methodological quality of non-randomised interventional studies of VH repair by systematic review.

METHODS

We searched the indexed literature for non-randomised studies of interventions for VH repair, January 1995 to December 2017 inclusive. Each prospective study was coupled with a corresponding retrospective study using pre-specified criteria to provide matched, comparable groups. We applied a bespoke methodological tool for hernia trials by combining relevant items from existing published tools. Study introduction and rationale, design, participant inclusion criteria, reported outcomes, and statistical methods were assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty studies (17,608 patients) were identified: 25 prospective and 25 retrospective. Overall, prospective studies scored marginally higher than retrospective studies for methodological quality, median score 17 (IQR: 14-18) versus 15 (IQR 12-18), respectively. For the sub-categories investigated, prospective studies achieved higher median scores for their, 'introduction', 'study design' and 'participants'. Surprisingly, no study stated that a protocol had been written in advance. Only 18 (36%) studies defined a primary outcome, and only 2 studies (4%) described a power calculation. No study referenced a standardised definition for VH recurrence and detection methods for recurrence varied widely. Methodological quality did not improve with publication year or increasing journal impact factor.

CONCLUSION

Currently, non-randomised interventional studies of VH repair are methodologically poor. Clear outcome definitions and a standardised minimum dataset are needed.

Unusual complication of seroma after ventral hernia mesh repair: Digestive perforation by tacks. A case report

•

Complicated seromas are rare and can cause therapeutic problems.

•

The right timing for mesh removal is delicate to be detected.

•

Erosion of the small bowel by the tacks has been reported. It seems to be due to technical problems.

•

In our case the pressure exerted by the bulky seroma favored the fistulization of the small bowel.

•

This case suggests that the type of mesh fixation may influence the time of its removal.

Intraperitoneal meshes are actually widely used in ventral hernia repair. They can reduce operative time, parietal prejudice and postoperative pain.

One of the most well-known complications of intraperitoneal mesh is seroma, but it usually subsides without any therapeutic problems.

These meshes can be fixed by tackers, suture or glue. Few complications related to the fixation technique are known.

We report the case of a patient who underwent a laparoscopic mesh repair for incisional hernia. He developed an infected bulky seroma for which he had to undergo medical treatment and percutanous drainage in order to avoid the mesh removal. The evolution seemed to be favorable until the occurrence of an unusual and unexpected complication: a digestive fistula of the small bowel in the seroma cavity via a tack adhering to the intestines.

The possibility of digestive lesions by a tack is reported by some cases reports. It seems most often to be related to a technical problem. In our case, this adhesion seems to be secondary to the pressure exerted by the seroma. The complicated seroma can be conservatively treated to save the mesh. However the delay before deciding to remove the mesh when using tackers for its fixation may be shortened.

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.

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.