Assessment of ideal ratio of mesh area to number of fixation tacks in laparoscopic ventral and incisional IPOM Plus hernia repair

BACKGROUND

To clarify the optimum mesh-tack ratio MTR (mesh area in cm² divided by the number of fixation tacks) in laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair, we compared IPOM Plus procedures with more intensive mesh fixation to those with standard mesh fixation.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, 84 patients (mean hernia width 6.6 ± 4.4 cm) intraoperatively received an intensive mesh fixation I-IPOM Plus with MTR ≤ 4:1 (e.g. ,150 cm² mesh fixed by 50 tacks) and 74 patients (mean hernia width 6.7 ± 3.4 cm) received a standard mesh fixation S-IPOM Plus with MTR > 4:1 (e.g., 150 cm² mesh fixed by 30 tacks) at a community hospital between 2014 and 2017. Outcomes in recurrence rates, immediate and chronic postoperative pain, as well as long-term functionality of the abdominal wall were then evaluated.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up time of 34 months, a 2.3% recurrence rate in I-IPOM Plus patients and a 13.5% recurrence rate in S-IPOM Plus patients were recorded (p = 0.018). The recurrence was associated with large hernia > 10 cm (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.3-5.4) and MTR > 5 (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-3.8) in the multivariate analysis. There was a positive correlation between immediate postoperative pain intensity measured on day 7 and number of fixation tacks placed (I-IPOM Plus: mean 4.5 ± 2.5 VAS versus S-IPOM Plus: mean 2.7 ± 2.0 VAS, p = 0.001). However, there were no outcome differences in terms of length of immediate postoperative pain experience, sick leave duration, chronic pain rate and long-term abdominal wall functionality between these two groups.

CONCLUSION

For ventral and incisional hernia patients with multiple recurrence risk factors, a mesh-tack ratio MTR ≤ 4:1 should be applied in laparoscopic IPOM Plus procedures.

Decreased re-operation rate for recurrence after defect closure in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with a permanent tack fixated mesh: a nationwide cohort study

PURPOSE

To investigate whether defect closure in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair reduces the re-operation rate for recurrence compared with no defect closure.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Danish Ventral Hernia Database. Adults with an elective laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with tacks used as mesh fixation were included, if their first repair was between the 1st of January 2007 and the 1st of January 2017. Patients with defect closure were compared with no defect closure. Re-operation rates are presented as crude rates and cumulated adjusted re-operation rates. Sub-analyses assessed the effect of the suture material used during defect closure and also whether defect closure affected both primary and incisional hernias equally.

RESULTS

Among patients with absorbable tacks as mesh fixation, 443 received defect closure and 532 did not. For patients with permanent tacks, 393 had defect closure and 442 did not. For patients with permanent tacks as mesh fixation, the crude re-operation rates were 3.6% with defect closure and 7.2% without defect closure (p = 0.02). The adjusted cumulated re-operation rate was significantly reduced with defect closure and permanent tacks (hazard ratio = 0.53, 95% confidence interval = 0.28-0.999, p = 0.05). The sub-analysis suggested that defect closure was only beneficial for incisional hernias, and not primary hernias. We did not find any benefits of defect closure for patients with absorbable tacks as mesh fixation.

CONCLUSION

This nationwide cohort study showed a reduced risk of re-operation for recurrence if defect closure was performed in addition to permanent tacks as mesh fixation during laparoscopic incisional hernia repair.

Absorbable versus non-absorbable tacks for mesh fixation in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the outcomes of absorbable versus non-absorbable tacks in patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. We conducted a search of electronic information sources, including MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating outcomes of absorbable versus non-absorbable tacks for mesh fixation in patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the risk of bias of RCTs and observational studies, respectively. Fixed-effect or random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data.

RESULTS

We identified three RCTs and two observational studies enrolling a total of 1149 patients. The included patients were comparable in terms of age [Mean difference (MD) 0.28, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.45-2, P = 0.75], male gender (MD 0.81, 95% CI 0.63-1.04, P = 0.10), body mass index (MD -041, 95% CI -1.28-0.46, P = 0.36) and hernia defect size (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.26-0.49, P = 0.54). The mean and median follow-up period was 30 months and 13 months, respectively There was no difference between the two mesh fixation techniques in terms of recurrence [Risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI -0.04, 0.09, P = 0.47], chronic pain [Odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.62-1.33, P = 0.64], seroma (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.37-2.60, P = 0.96), haematoma (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.04- 0.04, P = 0.99), prolonged ileus (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.24-4.03, P = 0.99), length of hospital stay (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.36-0.56, P = 0.68) and port-site hernia (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.13-7.16, P = 0.98). The operative time was longer in absorbable tack group (MD 7.53, 95% CI 1.49-13.58, P = 0.01). The results remain consistent when randomised trials were analysed separately.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference in clinical outcomes between absorbable and non-absorbable tacks for mesh fixation in patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. The quality of the available evidence is moderate with a possibility of type 2 error. High quality RCTs with adequate statistical power are required to provide more robust basis for definite conclusions. Considering the similarity of both techniques in terms of clinical outcomes, the cost-effectiveness of each technique would be an important outcome determining which technique should be used; this needs to be considered as an outcome of interest in future studies.

A word of caution: never use tacks for mesh fixation to the diaphragm!

Background

The mesh fixation technique used in repair of hiatal hernias and subxiphoid ventral and incisional hernias must meet strenuous requirements. In the literature, there are reports of life-threatening complications with cardiac tamponade and a high mortality rate on using tacks. The continuing practice of tack deployment for mesh fixation to the diaphragm and esophageal hiatus should be critically reviewed.

Methods

In a systematic search of the available literature in May 2017, 23 cases of severe penetrating cardiac complications were identified. The authors became aware of two other cases in which they acted as medical experts. Furthermore, the instructions for use issued by the manufacturers of the tacks were reviewed with regard to their deployment in the diaphragm.

Results

Twenty-three of 25 cases (92%) with severe cardiac injuries and subsequent cardiac tamponade were triggered by the use of tacks in the diaphragm. In six cases (24%), these related to ventral and incisional hernias with extension to the subxiphoid area, and in 19 cases (76%) to mesh-augmented hiatoplasty. Twelve of 25 (48%) patients died as a result of pericardial and/or heart muscle injury with cardiac tamponade despite heart surgery intervention. In the tack manufacturers’ instructions for use, their deployment in the diaphragm, in particular in the vicinity of the heart, is contraindicated. Likewise, the existing guidelines urgently advise against the use of tacks in the diaphragm, recommending instead alternative fixation techniques.

Conclusions

Tacks should not be used for mesh fixation in the diaphragm above the costal arch.