Onlay mesh repair for treatment of small umbilical hernias ≤ 2 cm in adults: a single-centre investigation

PURPOSE

Previous studies on the repair of small umbilical hernias have suggested a lower recurrence rate with mesh compared to suture repair. An important question is in what anatomical position the mesh should be placed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcome of using a standardized 4 × 4 cm onlay-mesh for umbilical hernias ≤ 2 cm.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted at a single centre in Sweden on all umbilical hernia repairs during 2015-2019. The follow-up time was at least four months. Patients were identified using the hospital medical database. Repairs performed with suture or a sublay, ventral patch and laparoscopic mesh positioning were excluded. The patient's demographics, comorbidities, intra-and post-operative details were considered. The primary outcome was surgical site complications within 30 days. The secondary outcome was a recurrence.

RESULTS

80 patients were repaired with a small onlay-mesh for an umbilical hernia ≤ 2 cm. The median (range) follow-up time was 29.0 (4.3-50.1) months. The median age was 46 (26-76) years old. The median body mass index was 28 (19-38) kg/m2. The male to female ratio was 2:1. 4 patients were identified with a surgical site post-operative complication; three with seromas and one with a superficial wound infection. 3 of these were given antibiotics. 2 patients were treated with wound openings bedside. There were no registered cases of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Repairing small umbilical hernias with a small onlay-mesh was safe with a low surgical site complication rate. Randomized trials are needed to assess whether mesh can reduce recurrences in umbilical hernia repairs ≤ 2 cm.

SUMMER Trial: mesh versus suture repair in small umbilical hernias in adults-a study protocol for a prospective randomized double-blind multicenter clinical trial

Background

Small umbilical hernia repair is one of the most common surgical performances in general surgery. Yet, a gold standard procedure for the repair is still lacking today. There is an increasing evidence that mesh could be advantageous compared to suture repair in lowering recurrence rates. An additional important question remains with regard to the optimal anatomical positioning of the mesh. We hypothesize that the use of an onlay mesh in small umbilical hernia defects can reduce recurrence rates without increasing the complications compared to a simple suture repair.

Methods

A prospective, national, multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing a standardized 4 × 4 cm onlay mesh to a conventional suture repair will be conducted. A total of 288 patients with a primary elective umbilical hernia ≤ 2 cm from 7 participating Swedish surgical centers will be enrolled. Intraoperative randomization will take place using a centralized web-based system resulting in total allocation concealment. Stratification will be done by surgical site and by defect size. Trial participants and follow-up clinical surgeons will be blinded to the assigned allocation. The primary outcome assessed will be postoperative recurrence at 1 and 3 years. Secondary outcomes assessed will be postoperative complications at 30 days and pain 1 year after surgery.

Discussion

Currently, there has been no randomized clinical trial comparing the recurrence rates between an onlay mesh repair and a simple suture repair for small umbilical hernia defects. How to best repair a small umbilical hernia continues to be debated. This trial design should allow for a good assessment of the differences in recurrence rate due to the large sample size and the adequate follow-up. Surgeons’ concerns surrounding optimal anatomical positioning and fear for larger required dissections are understandable. A small onlay mesh may become an easy and safe method of choice to reduce recurrence rates. Guidelines for small umbilical hernia repairs have stressed the need for reliable data to improve treatment recommendations. We can expect that this trial will have a direct implication on small umbilical hernia repair standards.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04231071. Registered on 31 January 2020. SUMMER Trial underwent external peer review as part of the funding process.

Patient-reported chronic pain after open inguinal hernia repair with lightweight or heavyweight mesh: a prospective, patient-reported outcomes study

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain after groin hernia repair is a significant problem, and it is unclear whether or not lightweight meshes help. This national register-based study investigated whether patients who underwent open anterior mesh inguinal hernia repair with lightweight mesh had less chronic pain than those who had hernia repair with heavyweight mesh.

METHODS

All patients registered in the Swedish Hernia Register between September 2012 and October 2016 were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing patient-reported outcome measures 1 year after surgery. The present study examined open anterior repair with mesh sutured in place with non-absorbable sutures in male patients only. The primary endpoint, chronic pain, was defined as pain present in the past week that could not be ignored and interfered with concentration (on chores) and daily activities.

RESULTS

In total, 23 259 male patients provided data for analysis (response rate 70·6 per cent). Rates of chronic pain after repairs using regular polypropylene lightweight mesh, composite (poliglecaprone-25) polypropylene lightweight mesh and polypropylene heavyweight mesh were 15·8, 15·6 and 16·2 per cent respectively. Adjusted multiple logistic regression analysis showed no significant differences between regular (odds ratio (OR) 0·98, 95 per cent c.i. 0·90 to 1·06) or composite (OR 0·95, 0·86 to 1·04) lightweight mesh versus heavyweight mesh. The most striking risk factor for chronic pain was young age; 19·4 per cent of patients aged less than 50 years experienced pain 1 year after hernia repair (OR 1·43, 1·29 to 1·60).

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported chronic pain 1 year after open mesh repair of inguinal hernia was common, particularly in young men. The risk of developing chronic pain was not influenced by the type of mesh.

Lower recurrence rate with heavyweight mesh compared to lightweight mesh in laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal (TEP) repair of groin hernia: a nationwide population-based register study

Purpose

Lightweight meshes (LWM) have shown benefits compared to heavyweight meshes (HWM) in terms of less postoperative pain and stiffness in open inguinal hernia repair. It appears to have similar advantages also in TEP, but concerns exist if it may be associated with higher recurrence rates. The aim of the study was to compare reoperation rate for recurrence of LWM to HWM in laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal (TEP) repair.

Methods

All groin hernias operated on with TEP between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2013 at surgical units participating in The Swedish Hernia Register were eligible. Data included clinically important hernia variables. Primary endpoint was reoperation for recurrence. Median follow-up time was 6.1 years (0–11.5) with minimum 2.5 years postoperatively.

Results

In total, 13,839 repairs were included for statistical analysis and 491 were re-operated for recurrence. Multivariate analysis demonstrated significantly increased risk of reoperation for recurrence in LWM 4.0% (HR 1.56, P < 0.001) compared to HWM 3.2%. This was most evident in direct hernias (HR 1.75, P < 0.001) and in hernia repairs with a defect > 3 cm (HR 1.54, P < 0.021). The risk of recurrence with use of LWM in indirect hernias and in hernia repairs with a defect < 1.5 cm was more comparable to HWM.

Conclusions

Lightweight meshes were associated with an increased risk of reoperation for recurrence compared to HWM. While direct hernias and larger hernia defects may benefit from HWM to avoid increased recurrence rates, LWM is recommended to be used in indirect and smaller hernia defects in TEP repair.

Initial symptoms and clinical features in osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma

BACKGROUND

The time between the initial symptoms of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma and the correct diagnosis and treatment is long. Over the last two decades, the prognosis for patients with these diseases has dramatically improved due to a new chemotherapy regimen. As a consequence, a limb-sparing operation has become an alternative to amputation. The aim of this study was to establish the initial symptoms and physical signs of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma from the records of the first medical visit and to identify early characteristics of the diseases to shorten the delay to diagnosis.

METHODS

A group of patients with osteosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma was identified from the Swedish Cancer Register of patients thirty years old and younger. Records from the first medical visit due to symptoms related to the bone tumor were obtained for 102 patients with osteosarcoma and forty-seven patients with Ewing sarcoma.

RESULTS

Pain related to strain was reported by eighty-seven (85 percent) of the patients with osteosarcoma and thirty (64 percent) of those with Ewing sarcoma, but only twenty-one (21 percent) of the patients with osteosarcoma and nine (19 percent) of those with Ewing sarcoma reported pain at night. Forty-eight (47 percent) of the patients with osteosarcoma and twelve (26 percent) of those with Ewing sarcoma related the onset of symptoms to minor trauma occurring around the same time. A palpable mass was noted in forty (39 percent) of the patients with osteosarcoma and sixteen (34 percent) of those with Ewing sarcoma at the first visit, and in most cases the tumor diagnosis was suspected. There was a broad spectrum of misdiagnoses; the most common was tendinitis, which was the initial diagnosis in thirty-two (31 percent) of the patients with osteosarcoma and ten (21 percent) of those with Ewing sarcoma. The doctor's delay (the period from the first medical visit due to the symptoms to the correct diagnosis) was longer for Ewing sarcoma than for osteosarcoma (nineteen weeks and nine weeks, respectively; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

An initial symptom of both osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma was pain, which was intermittent and often related to strain but not frequently felt at night. A history of trauma was common, but the clinical course often diverged from what was expected from trauma. The clinical course of osteosarcoma and particularly of Ewing sarcoma was not steadily progressive but intermittent, which often misled the doctor into believing that the condition was temporary. The most important clinical feature was a palpable mass, which was noted in more than one-third of the patients at the first visit. This finding emphasizes that a thorough physical examination is absolutely necessary.