Search

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity., Competing Interests: FM declared consultancy fees from Medtronic, Dynamesh, BD, and Gore. NS declared speakers fees on parastomal hernia prevention with mesh prophylaxis from Medtronic, WL Gore. All other panel members declared no financial conflict of interest. SA and FM were part of the guideline development group of the EHS Guidelines on Parastomal Hernias. ML, H-TB, and CO are authors of randomized trials and meta-analyses related to the content of this topic. Conflicts of interest were documented and managed as per Guidelines International Network Standards. Detailed conflict of interest statements of all contributors can be found in https://osf.io/k4sh8/. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Stabilini, Muysoms, Tzanis, Rossi, Koutsiouroumpa, Mavridis, Adamina, Bracale, Brandsma, Breukink, López Cano, Cole, Doré, Jensen, Krogsgaard, Smart, Odensten, Tielemans and Antoniou.)

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I 2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I 2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I 2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I 2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach., Competing Interests: FM declared consultancy fees from Medtronic, Dynamesh, BD, and Gore. NS declared speakers fees on parastomal hernia prevention with mesh prophylaxis from Medtronic, WL Gore. All other panel members declared no financial conflict of interest. SA and FM were part of the guideline development group of the EHS Guidelines on Parastomal Hernias. ML, H-TB, and CO are authors of randomized trials and meta-analyses related to the content of this topic. Conflicts of interest were documented and managed as per Guidelines International Network Standards. Detailed conflict of interest statements of all contributors can be found in https://osf.io/k4sh8/. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Tzanis, Stabilini, Muysoms, Rossi, Koutsiouroumpa, Mavridis, Adamina, Bracale, Brandsma, Breukink, López Cano, Cole, Doré, Jensen, Krogsgaard, Smart, Odensten, Tielemans and Antoniou.)

Background: Clinical practice recommendations for the management of acute appendicitis in pregnancy are lacking., Objective: To develop an evidence-informed, trustworthy guideline on the management of appendicitis in pregnancy. We aimed to address the questions of conservative or surgical management, and laparoscopic or open surgery for acute appendicitis., Methods: We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence appraisal using the GRADE methodology. A European, multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, obstetricians/gynecologists, a midwife, and 3 patient representatives reached consensus through an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to formulate the recommendations. The project was developed in an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp)., Results: Research evidence was of very low certainty. We recommend operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with complicated appendicitis or appendicolith on imaging studies (strong recommendation). We suggest operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with uncomplicated appendicitis and no appendicolith on imaging studies (weak recommendation). We suggest laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis until the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is below the level of the umbilicus; and laparoscopic or open appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis beyond the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is above the level of the umbilicus, depending on the preference and expertise of the surgeon., Conclusion: Through a structured, evidence-informed approach, an interdisciplinary panel provides a strong recommendation to perform appendectomy for complicated appendicitis or appendicolith, and laparoscopic or open appendectomy beyond the 20th week, based on the surgeon's preference and expertise., Guideline Registration Number: IPGRP-2022CN210., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim of these updated guidelines was to provide recommendations to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia., Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed on 22 January 2022. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network instrument was used to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCTs, and cohort studies. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to appraise the certainty of the evidence. The guidelines group consisted of surgical specialists, a biomedical information specialist, certified guideline methodologist, and patient representative., Results: Thirty-nine papers were included covering seven key questions, and weak recommendations were made for all of these. Laparoscopic surgery and non-midline incisions are suggested to be preferred when safe and feasible. In laparoscopic surgery, suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus. For closure of an elective midline laparotomy, a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomy can be considered to reduce the risk of incisional hernia; a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position is advised., Conclusion: These updated guidelines may help surgeons in selecting the optimal approach and location of abdominal wall incisions., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Objective: To assess prevalence of hernia recurrence, surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, serious complications, and mortality after retro-rectus repair., Summary Background Data: Ventral abdominal wall hernia is a common problem, tied to increasing frailty and obesity of patients undergoing surgery. For noncomplex ventral hernia, retro-rectus (Rives-Stoppa) repair is considered the gold standard treatment. Level-1 evidence confirming this presumed superiority is lacking., Methods: Five databases were searched for studies reporting on retro-rectus repair. Single-armed and comparative randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Outcomes were pooled with mixed-effects, inverse variance or random-effects models., Results: Ninety-three studies representing 12,440 patients undergoing retro-rectus repair were included. Pooled hernia recurrence was estimated at 3.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.2%-4.2%, n = 11,049] after minimally 12months and 4.1%, (95%CI: 2.9%-5.5%, n = 3830) after minimally 24 months. Incidences of SSI and seroma were estimated at respectively 5.2% (95%CI: 4.2%-6.4%, n = 4891) and 5.5% (95%CI: 4.4%-6.8%, n = 3650). Retro-rectus repair was associated with lower recurrence rates compared to onlay repair [odds ratios (OR): 0.27, 95%CI: 0.15-0.51, P < 0.001] and equal recurrence rates compared to intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair (OR: 0.92, 95%CI: 0.75-1.12, P = 0.400). Retro-rectus repair was associated with more SSI than IPOM repair (OR: 1.8, 95%CI: 1.03 -3.14, P = 0.038). Minimally invasive retro-rectus repair displayed low rates of recurrence (1.3%, 95%CI: 0.7%-2.3%, n = 849) and SSI (1.5%, 95%CI: 0.8%-2.8%, n = 982), albeit based on non-randomized studies., Conclusions: Retro-rectus (Rives-Stoppa) repair results in excellent outcomes, superior or similar to other techniques for all outcomes except SSI. The latter rarely occurred, yet less frequently after IPOM repair, which is usually performed by laparoscopy., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: To obtain tension-free closure for giant incisional hernia repair, anterior or posterior component separation is often performed. In patients with an extreme diameter hernia, anterior component separation and posterior component separation may be combined. The aim of this study was to assess the additional medialization after simultaneous anterior component separation and posterior component separation., Methods: Fresh-frozen post mortem human specimens were used. Both sides of the abdominal wall were subjected to retro-rectus dissection (Rives-Stoppa), anterior component separation and posterior component separation, the order in which the component separation techniques were performed was reversed for the contralateral side. Medialization was measured at 3 reference points., Results: Anterior component separation provided most medialization for the anterior rectus sheath, posterior component separation provided most medialization for the posterior rectus sheath. After combined component separation techniques total median medialization ranged between 5.8 and 9.2 cm for the anterior rectus sheath, and between 10.1 and 14.2 cm for the posterior rectus sheath (depending on the level on the abdomen). For the anterior rectus sheath, additional posterior component separation after anterior component separation provided 15% to 16%, and additional anterior component separation after posterior component separation provided 32% to 38% of the total medialization after combined component separation techniques. For the posterior rectus sheath, additional posterior component separation after anterior component separation provided 50% to 59%, and additional anterior component separation after posterior component separation provided 11% to 17% of the total medialization after combined component separation techniques. Retro-rectus dissection alone contributed up to 41% of maximum obtainable medialization., Conclusion: Anterior component separation provided most medialization of the anterior rectus sheath and posterior component separation provided most medialization of the posterior rectus sheath. Combined component separation techniques provide marginal additional medialization, clinical use of this technique should be carefully balanced against additional risks., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Over the past 25 years, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has been issuing clinical guidance documents to aid surgical practice. We aimed to investigate the awareness and use of such documents among EAES members. Additionally, we conceptually appraised the methodology used in their development in order to propose a bundle of actions for quality improvement and increased penetration of clinical practice guidelines among EAES members., Methods: We invited members of EAES to participate in a web-based survey on awareness and use of these documents. Post hoc analyses were performed to identify factors associated with poor awareness/use and the reported reasons for limited use. We further summarized and conceptually analyzed key methodological features of clinical guidance documents published by EAES., Results: Three distinct consecutive phases of methodological evolvement of clinical guidance documents were evident: a "consensus phase," a "guideline phase," and a "transitional phase". Out of a total of 254 surgeons who completed the survey, 72% percent were aware of EAES guidelines and 47% reported occasional use. Young age and trainee status were associated with poor awareness and use. Restriction by colleagues was the primary reason for limited use in these subgroups., Conclusions: The methodology of EAES clinical guidance documents is evolving. Awareness among EAES members is fair, but use is limited. Dissemination actions should be directed to junior surgeons and trainees.

Background: No standardized written or volumetric definition exists for 'loss of domain' (LOD). This limits the utility of LOD as a morphological descriptor and as a predictor of peri- and postoperative outcomes. Consequently, our aim was to establish definitions for LOD via consensus of expert abdominal wall surgeons., Methods: A Delphi study involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) surgeons was performed. Four written and two volumetric definitions of LOD were identified via systematic review. Panelists completed a questionnaire that suggested these definitions as standardized definitions of LOD. Consensus on a preferred term was pre-defined as achieved when selected by ≥80% of panelists. Terms scoring <20% were removed., Results: Voting commenced August 2018 and was completed in January 2019. Written definition: During Round 1, two definitions were removed and seven new definitions were suggested, leaving nine definitions for consideration. For Round 2, panelists were asked to select all appealing definitions. Thereafter, common concepts were identified during analysis, from which the facilitators advanced a new written definition. This received 100% agreement in Round 3. Volumetric definition: Initially, panelists were evenly split, but consensus for the Sabbagh method was achieved. Panelists could not reach consensus regarding a threshold LOD value that would preclude surgery., Conclusions: Consensus for written and volumetric definitions of LOD was achieved from 20 internationally recognized AWR surgeons. Adoption of these definitions will help standardize the use of LOD for both clinical and academic activities.

Background: Large incisional hernias require medialization of the rectus abdominis muscles to facilitate tension-free closure. Medialization may be achieved by Rives-Stoppa, anterior component separation, or posterior component separation. This study aims to compare medialization achieved by these techniques in postmortem human specimens., Methods: First, the Rives-Stoppa procedure was performed. Subsequently, anterior and posterior component separation were performed on one side in each specimen, with each specimen functioning as its own control. Medialization was measured at three levels of the linea alba with three 1-kg weights. Both medialization obtained in addition to initial medialization after opening the linea alba and total medialization were measured. Results are presented as median and interquartile range., Results: A total of 13 postmortem human specimens were included (Rives-Stoppa n = 13, component separation n = 10). Additional medialization after Rives-Stoppa was 1.2 cm (IQR: 0.3-2.2) for the anterior rectus sheath and 2.2 cm (IQR: 1.6-3.0) for the posterior rectus sheath (total medialization: 3.9 and 4.5 cm). For the anterior rectus sheath, additional medialization was 2.6 cm (IQR: 1.2-3.6) after anterior component separation and 1.9 cm (IQR: 0.4-3.4) after posterior component separation (P = .125, total medialization: 6.5 and 5.7 cm). For the posterior rectus sheath, additional medialization was 3.0 cm (IQR: 2.2-3.7) after anterior component separation and 5.2 cm (IQR: 4.2-5.9) after posterior component separation (P < .001, total medialization: 5.8 and 9.4 cm)., Conclusion: Posterior component separation yielded significantly more medialization of the posterior rectus sheath compared with Rives-Stoppa and anterior component separation. Anterior component separation may provide marginally more medialization of the anterior rectus sheath., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of the study was to identify clinical practice guidelines published by surgical scientific organizations, assess their quality, and investigate the association between defined factors and quality. The ultimate objective was to develop a framework to improve the quality of surgical guidelines., Summary Background Data: Evidence on the quality of surgical guidelines is lacking., Methods: We searched MEDLINE for clinical practice guidelines published by surgical scientific organizations with an international scope between 2008 and 2017. We investigated the association between the following factors and guideline quality, as assessed using the AGREE II instrument: number of guidelines published within the study period by a scientific organization, the presence of a guidelines committee, applying the GRADE methodology, consensus project design, and the presence of intersociety collaboration., Results: Ten surgical scientific organizations developed 67 guidelines over the study period. The median overall score using AGREE II tool was 4 out of a maximum of 7, whereas 27 (40%) guidelines were not considered suitable for use. Guidelines produced by a scientific organization with an output of ≥9 guidelines over the study period [odds ratio (OR) 3.79, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-12.66, P = 0.048], the presence of a guidelines committee (OR 4.15, 95% CI, 1.47-11.77, P = 0.007), and applying the GRADE methodology (OR 8.17, 95% CI, 2.54-26.29, P < 0.0001) were associated with higher odds of being recommended for use., Conclusions: Development by a guidelines committee, routine guideline output, and adhering to the GRADE methodology were found to be associated with higher guideline quality in the field of surgery.

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) is a new technique that aims to minimize abdominal wall trauma and improve cosmesis. Concerns have been raised about the risk of trocar-site hernia following SILS. This study aims to assess the risk of trocar-site hernia following SILS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, and investigate whether current evidence is conclusive., Methods: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and OpenGrey. We considered randomized clinical trials comparing the risk of trocar-site hernia with SILS and conventional laparoscopic surgery. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Trial sequential analysis using the Land and DeMets method was performed to assess the possibility of type I error and compute the information size., Results: Twenty-three articles reporting a total of 2471 patients were included. SILS was associated with higher odds of trocar-site hernia compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (odds ratio 2.37, 95% CI 1.25-4.50, p = 0.008). There was no evidence of between-study heterogeneity or small-study effects. The information size was calculated at 1687 patients and the Z-curve crossed the O'Brien-Fleming α-spending boundaries at 1137 patients, suggesting that the evidence of higher risk of trocar-site hernia with SILS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery can be considered conclusive., Conclusions: Single-incision laparoscopic procedures through the umbilicus are associated with a higher risk of trocar-site hernia compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Background: There is an increasing interest in patient-reported outcome measurement to evaluate hernia operations. Several hernia-specific quality of life (QoL) scales have been proposed, but none are constructed for preoperative assessment., Methods: The European Registry for Abdominal Wall Hernias (EuraHS) proposed the short, 9-question EuraHS-QoL instrument for assessment pre- and postoperatively. The EuraHS-QoL was evaluated in a prospective, multicenter validation study alongside the Visual Analogue Scale, Verbal Rating Scale, and Carolina Comfort Scale (https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01936584)., Results: We included 101 patients undergoing unilateral laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with ProGrip laparoscopic, self-fixating mesh. Clinical follow-up at 12 months was 87% complete. The EuraHS-QoL score shows good internal consistency (Cronbach's α ≥ .90), good test-retest reliability (Spearman correlation coefficient r ≥ 0.72), and high correlation for pain with the Visual Analogue Scale, the Verbal Rating Scale, the Carolina Comfort Scale pain scale (r between 0.64 and 0.86), and for restriction of activity with the Carolina Comfort Scale movement scale (r between 0.65 and 0.79). Our results show significant improvement in quality of life at 3 weeks compared with preoperative and further significant improvement at 12 months (P < .05). No late complications or recurrences were recorded. An operation was performed in day surgery (>75%) or with a <24-hour admission (>95%) in the majority of the patients., Conclusion: The EuraHS-QoL instrument is a short and valid patient-reported outcome measurement following groin hernia repair. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with ProGrip laparoscopic, self-fixating mesh results in a favorable outcome and significant improvement of quality of life compared with the preoperative assessment., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis., Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standards Disclosures Dr. Antoniou received personal fees from the EAES (including Journal and Publication Committee) and from the European Hernia Society. Dr. Muysoms received grants personal fees and non-financial support from Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson. He received grants and personal fees from B. Braun and Dynamesh. He received personal fees from BARD davol, Cousin Biotech, WL Gore@ass and Dansac outside the submitted work. Prof. Dr. Bonjer received grants and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, Applied Medical, Medtronic and Olympus. He received personal fees from Cook. All outside the submitted work. Drs. Defoort, Dr. Go, Prof. Dr. Ozmen, Dr. Rhodes, Drs. Gorter, Dr. Eker, Drs Gorter-Stam, Drs. Abis, Drs. Acharya, Drs. Ankersmit, Drs. Arolfo, Drs. Babic, Prof. Dr. Boni, Drs. Bruntink, Drs. Van Dam, Drs. Deijen, Drs. DeLacy, Drs. Harmsen, Drs. Van den Helder, Dr. Iordache, Drs. Ket, Drs. Papoulas, Drs. Straatman, Drs. Tenhagen, Drs. Turrado, Dr. Vereczkei, Prof. Dr. Vilallonga and Drs. Deelder have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Background: Prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during closure of abdominal wall incisions has been proposed in patients with increased risk for development of incisional hernias (IHs). As part of the BioMesh consensus project, a systematic literature review has been performed to detect those studies where MAR was performed with a non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic)., Methods: A computerized search was performed within 12 databases (Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, Pubmed publisher, Lilacs, Scielo, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google Scholar) with appropriate search terms. Qualitative evaluation was performed using the MINORS score for cohort studies and the Jadad score for randomized clinical trials (RCTs)., Results: For midline laparotomy incisions and stoma reversal wounds, two RCTs, two case-control studies, and two case series were identified. The studies were very heterogeneous in terms of mesh configuration (cross linked versus non-cross linked), mesh position (intraperitoneal versus retro-muscular versus onlay), surgical indication (gastric bypass versus aortic aneurysm), outcome results (effective versus non-effective). After qualitative assessment, we have to conclude that the level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of biological meshes for prevention of IHs is very low . No comparative studies were found comparing biological mesh with synthetic non-absorbable meshes for the prevention of IHs., Conclusion: There is no evidence supporting the use of non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic) for prevention of IHs when closing a laparotomy in high-risk patients or in stoma reversal wounds. There is no evidence that a non-permanent absorbable mesh should be preferred to synthetic non-absorbable mesh, both in clean or clean-contaminated surgery.

Background: The incidence of incisional hernias after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is high. Prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during laparotomy closure has been proposed in patients at high risk of incisional hernia., Methods: A multicenter randomized trial was conducted on patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair through a midline laparotomy (Clinical.Trials.gov: NCT00757133). In the study group, retromuscular mesh-augmented reinforcement was performed with a large-pore polypropylene mesh (Ultrapro, width 7.5 cm). The primary endpoint was the incidence of incisional hernias at 2-year follow-up., Results: Between February 2009 and January 2013, 120 patients were recruited at 8 Belgian centers. Patients' characteristics at baseline were similar between groups. Operative and postoperative characteristics showed no difference in morbidity or mortality. The cumulative incidence of incisional hernias at 2-year follow-up after conventional closure was 28% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%-41%) versus 0% (95% CI, 0%-6%) after mesh-augmented reinforcement (P < 0.0001; Fisher exact test). The estimated "freedom of incisional hernia" curves (Kaplan-Meier estimate) were significantly different across study arms (χ = 19.5, P < 0.0001; Mantel-Cox test). No adverse effect related to mesh-augmented reinforcement was observed, apart from an increased mean time to close the abdominal wall for mesh-augmented reinforcement compared with the control group: 46 minutes (SD, 18.6) versus 30 minutes (SD, 18.5), respectively (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney U test)., Conclusions: Prophylactic retromuscular mesh-augmented reinforcement of a midline laparotomy in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm is safe and effectively prevents the development of incisional hernia during 2 years, with an additional mean operative time of 16 minutes.

Background: Evidence for open groin hernia repair demonstrates less pain with bioglue mesh fixation compared with invasive methods. This study aimed to assess the short- and long-term effects of laparoscopic groin hernia repair with noninvasive and invasive mesh fixation., Data Sources: A systematic review of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and OpenGrey was undertaken. Randomized trials assessing the outcome of laparoscopic groin hernia repair with invasive and noninvasive fixation methods were considered for data synthesis. Nine trials encompassing 1,454 patients subjected to laparoscopic hernia repair with mesh fixation using biologic or biosynthetic glue were identified. Short-term data were inadequate for data synthesis. Chronic pain was less frequently reported by patients subjected to repair with biologic glue fixation than with penetrating methods (odds ratio .46, 95% confidence interval .22 to .93). Duration of surgery, incidence of seroma/hematoma, morbidity, and recurrence were similar., Conclusions: Laparoscopic groin hernia repair with bioglue mesh fixation was associated with a reduced incidence of chronic pain compared with mechanical fixation, without increasing morbidity or recurrence. Longer term data on recurrence are necessary., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Since the introduction of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair, there has been an ongoing dispute over the optimal method of fixating the mesh against the abdominal wall. In general, one could say that the more penetrating the fixation used, the stronger the fixation, but at the cost of increased acute postoperative pain. The occurrence of chronic pain in some patients has led to the search for less permanent penetrating fixation, but without risking a less stable mesh fixation and increased recurrences due to shift or shrinkage of the mesh. Avoiding transfascial sutures by using a double crown of staples has been proposed and recently absorbable fixation devices have been developed. Some surgeons have proposed fixation with glue to reduce the number of staples, or even eliminate them entirely. The continuously increasing multitude of marketed meshes and fixating devices leads to unlimited options in mesh fixation combination and geometry. Therefore, we will never be able to get a clear view on the benefits and pitfalls of every specific combination. Clearance of the anterior abdominal wall from peritoneal fatty tissue and correct positioning of the mesh with ample overlap of the hernia defect are possibly as important as the choice of mesh and fixation. Other topics that are involved in successful outcomes but not addressed in this article are adequate training in the procedure, appropriate selection of patients, and careful adhesiolysis to minimize accidental visceral injuries.