The reality of general surgery training and increased complexity of abdominal wall hernia surgery

INTRODUCTION

The Accreditation and Certification of Hernia Centers and Surgeons (ACCESS) Group of the European Hernia Society (EHS) recognizes that there is a growing need to train specialist abdominal wall surgeons. The most important and relevant argument for this proposal and statement is the growing acceptance of the increasing complexity of abdominal wall surgery due to newer techniques, more challenging cases and the required 'tailored' approach to such surgery. There is now also an increasing public awareness with social media, whereby optimal treatment results are demanded by patients. However, to date the complexity of abdominal wall surgery has not been properly or adequately defined in the current literature.

METHODS

A systematic search of the available literature was performed in May 2019 using Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Springer Link, and the Cochrane Library, with 75 publications identified as relevant. In addition, an analysis of data from the Herniamed Hernia Registry was performed. The percentage of patients with hernia- or patient-related characteristics which unfavorably impacted the outcome of inguinal and incisional hernia repair was also calculated.

RESULTS

All present guidelines for abdominal wall surgery recommend the utilization of a 'tailored' approach. This relies on the prerequisite that any surgical technique used has already been mastered, as well as the recognized learning curves for each of the several techniques that can be used for both inguinal hernia (Lichtenstein, TEP, TAPP, Shouldice) and incisional hernia repairs (laparoscopic IPOM, open sublay, open IPOM, open onlay, open or endoscopic component separation technique). Other hernia- and patient-related characteristics that have recognized complexity include emergency surgery, obesity, recurrent hernias, bilateral inguinal hernias, groin hernia in women, scrotal hernias, large defects, high ASA scores, > 80 years of age, increased medical risk factors and previous lower abdominal surgery. The proportion of patients with at least one of these characteristics in the Herniamed Hernia Registry in the case of both inguinal and incisional hernia is noted to be relatively high at around 70%. In general surgery training approximately 50-100 hernia repairs on average are performed by each trainee, with around only 25 laparo-endoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSION

A tailored approach is now employed and seen more so in hernia surgery and this fact is referred to and highlighted in the contemporaneous hernia guidelines published to date. In addition, with the increasing complexity of abdominal wall surgery, the number of procedures actually performed by trainees is no longer considered adequate to overcome any recognized learning curve. Therefore, to supplement general surgery training young surgeons should be offered a clinical fellowship to obtain an additional qualification as an abdominal wall surgeon and thus improve their clinical and operative experience under supervision in this field. Practicing general surgeons with a special interest in hernia surgery can undertake intensive further training in this area by participating in clinical work shadowing in hernia centers, workshops and congresses.

Accreditation and certification requirements for hernia centers and surgeons: the ACCESS project

INTRODUCTION

There is a need for hernia centers and specialist hernia surgeons because of the increasing complexity of hernia surgery procedures due to new techniques, more difficult cases and a tailored approach with an increasing public awareness demanding optimal treatment results. Therefore, the requirements for accredited/certified hernia centers and specialist hernia surgeons should be formulated by the international and national hernia societies, while taking account of the respective health care systems.

METHODS

The European Hernia Society (EHS) has appointed a working group composed of 18 hernia experts from all regions of Europe (ACCESS Group-Hernia Accreditation and Certification of Centers and Surgeons-Working Group) to formulate scientifically based requirements for hernia centers and specialist hernia surgeons while taking into consideration different health care systems. A consensus was reached on the key questions by means of a meeting, a telephone conference and the exchange of contributions. The requirements formulated below were deemed implementable by all participating hernia experts in their respective countries.

RESULTS

The ACCESS Group suggests for an adequately equipped hernia center the following requirements: (a) to be accredited/certified by a national or international hernia society, (b) to perform a higher case volume in all types of hernia surgery compared to an average general surgery department in their country, (c) to be staffed by experienced hernia surgeons who are beyond the learning curve for all types of hernia surgery recommended in the guidelines and are responsible for education and training of hernia surgery in their department, (d) to treat hernia patients according to the current guidelines and scientific recommendations, (e) to document each case prospectively in a registry or quality assurance database (f) to perform follow-up for comparison of their own results with benchmark data for continuous improvement of their treatment results and ensuring contribution to research in hernia treatment. To become a specialist hernia surgeon, the ACCESS Group suggests a general surgeon to master the learning curve of all open and laparo-endoscopic hernia procedures recommended in the guidelines, perform a high caseload and additionally to implement and fulfill the other requirements for a hernia center.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above requirements formulated by the European Hernia Society for accredited/certified hernia centers and hernia specialist surgeons, the national and international hernia societies can now develop their own programs, while taking account of their specific health care systems.

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION

Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations.

METHODS

A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used.

RESULTS

The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.