Proceed™ mesh for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

Reoperation for Recurrence is Affected by Type of Mesh in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: A Nationwide Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the reoperation rate for recurrence between different mesh types in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Ventral hernia repair has improved over the last decades. Nevertheless, recurrence rates are still high, and one type of mesh was recently found to increase it even more.

METHODS

A nationwide cohort study based on prospectively collected data from the Danish Ventral Hernia Database. We included adult patients that had undergone a laparoscopic ventral hernia repair for either an incisional or a primary hernia. The primary and incisional hernias were analyzed in separate cohorts. The mesh-group with the lowest reoperation for recurrence curve was used as the reference. The outcome was reoperation for recurrence.

RESULTS

Study population comprised 2874 patients with primary hernias and 2726 with incisional hernias. For primary hernias, Physiomesh [HR = 3.45 (2.16-5.51)] and Proceed Surgical Mesh [HR = 2.53 (1.35-4.75)] had a significantly higher risk of reoperation for recurrence than DynaMesh-IPOM. For incisional hernias, Physiomesh [HR = 3.90 (1.80-8.46), Ventralex Hernia Patch (HR = 2.99 (1.13-7.93), Parietex Composite (incl. Optimized) (HR = 2.55 (1.17-5.55), and Proceed Surgical Mesh (HR = 2.63 (1.11-6.20)] all had a significantly higher risk of reoperation for recurrence than Ventralight ST Mesh.

CONCLUSION

For primary hernias, Physiomesh and Proceed Surgical Mesh had a significantly higher risk of reoperation for recurrence compared with DynaMesh-IPOM. For incisional hernias, the risk was significantly higher for Physiomesh, Parietex Composite, Ventralex Hernia Patch, and Proceed Surgical Mesh compared with Ventralight ST Mesh. This indicates that type of mesh may be associated with outcomes, and mesh choice could therefore depend on hernia type.

Surgical and oncological short-term outcomes of prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer

Introduction In recent years, a standardized surgical approach for low rectal cancer was proposed and adopted in many centres. The extralevator abdominoperineal excision introduce an extensive resection of the pelvic floor and demonstrated superiority if the procedure is done in the prone jack-knife position, especially regarding intraoperative perforation and circumferential resections margins. The aim of this study is to evaluate the surgical and oncological short-term outcomes of prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision.

Methods All patients registered in our institution from January 2003 to January 2015 who underwent abdominoperineal resection or prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiation were retrospectively included from prospective maintained data base and were compared regarding surgical and oncological outcomes.

Results Eighty-nine patients underwent curative intent resections. Abdominoperineal resection was performed in 67 patients and prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision in 22 patients. There were no statistical significant differences between groups regarding pathological stage, median number of harvested lymph node, intraoperative perforation, circumferential resections margins involvement and recurrence rates. Surgical outcomes were statistically different between groups. Twenty-six patients (29%) developed perineal complications, 21% of the abdominoperineal resection patients and 55% of the prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision (p < 0.001). Most of these complications were due to delayed perineal wound healing (12.4%), and wound abscesses (4.5%). However, the readmission rate and median length of hospital stay was higher in the abdominoperineal resection group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion Prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision is comparable to standard abdominoperineal resection. It was associated to a decrease in length of hospital stay and readmission rate, although more perineal complications occurred. We cannot recommend it as a standard technique for all low rectal cancer. Notwithstanding, prone extralevator abdominoperineal excision can be considered a more radical approach when there is sphincter complex or levators muscles invasion.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of methods of mesh fixation during laparoscopic ventral hernia repair

BACKGROUND

Ventral hernia repairs are common and have high recurrence rates. They are usually repaired laparoscopically with an intraperitoneal mesh, which can be fixed in various ways. The aim was to evaluate the recurrence rates for the different fixation techniques.

METHODS

This systematic review included studies with human adults with a ventral hernia repaired with an intraperitoneal onlay mesh. The outcome was recurrence at least 6 months after operation. Cohort studies with 50 or more participants and all RCTs were included. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 22 September 2016. RCTs were assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool and cohort studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Studies comparing fixation techniques were included in a network meta-analysis, which allowed comparison of more than two fixation techniques.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies with a total of 6553 participants were included. The overall crude recurrence rates with the various fixation techniques were: absorbable tacks, 17·5 per cent (2 treatment groups); absorbable tacks with sutures, 0·7 per cent (3); permanent tacks, 7·7 per cent (20); permanent tacks with sutures, 6·0 per cent (25); and sutures, 1·5 per cent (6). Six studies were included in a network meta-analysis, which favoured fixation with sutures. Although statistical significance was not achieved, there was a 93 per cent chance of sutures being better than one of the other methods.

CONCLUSION

Both crude recurrence rates and the network meta-analysis favoured fixation with sutures during laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

Central mesh failure after laparoscopic IPOM procedure

Central mesh failure after laparoscopic repair of a ventral hernia is a rare finding. We present a case of a 42-year-old man with clear umbilical hernia recurrence 4 years after IPOM procedure with an oxidized cellulose composite polypropylene mesh, using the double crown technique. Laparoscopy showed that a segment of small intestine herniated through a central defect in the prosthesis. A primary repair of the umbilical hernia recurrence was performed through a small transverse infraumbilical incision suturing both the fascia and mesh with interrupted non-resorbable monofilament sutures. A plausible explanation for this type of recurrence might be that the center of the mesh was further torn after an initial (micro) trauma induced by the tackers used for fixation.

Current Trends in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair

Background and Objectives:

The purpose of this study was to analyze the surgical technique, postoperative complications, and possible recurrence after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) in comparison with open ventral hernia repair (OVHR), based on the international literature.

Database:

A Medline search of the current English literature was performed using the terms laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and incisional hernia repair.

Conclusions:

LVHR is a safe alternative to the open method, with the main advantages being minimal postoperative pain, shorter recovery, and decreased wound and mesh infections. Incidental enterotomy can be avoided by using a meticulous technique and sharp dissection to avoid thermal injury.