Search

Primary (PVHs) and incisional (IHs) ventral hernias represent a common indication for surgery. Nevertheless, most of the papers presented in literature analyze both types of defect together, thus potentially introducing a bias in the results of interpretation. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to highlight the differences between these two entities. Methods MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were reviewed to identify studies evaluating the outcomes of both open and laparoscopic repair with mesh of PVHs vs IHs. Search was restricted to English language literature. Risk of bias was assessed with MINORS score. Primary outcome was recurrence, and secondary outcomes were baseline characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative data. Fixed effects model was used unless significant heterogeneity, assessed with the Higgins I square (I2), was encountered. The search resulted in 783 hits, after screening; 11 retrospective trials were selected including 38,727 patients. Mean MINORS of included trials was 15.2 (range 5–21). The estimated pooled proportion difference for recurrence was − 0.09 (− 0.11; − 0.07) between the two groups in favor of the PVH group. On metanalysis, PVHs were smaller in area and diameters, affected younger and less comorbid patients, and were more frequently singular; the operative time and length of stay was quicker. Other complications did not differ significantly. Our paper supports the hypothesis that PVH and IH are different conditions with the latter being more challenging to treat. Accordingly, EHS classifications should be adopted systematically as well as pooling data analysis should be no longer performed in clinical trials.

Background\ud \ud Current guidelines state that the Shouldice technique has lower recurrence rates than other suture repairs and therefore is strongly recommended in non-mesh inguinal hernia repair. Recently a new tissue repair technique has been proposed by Desarda and studied in trials against Lichtenstein technique.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud The present study was performed according to the PRISMA Statement for Network Meta-analysis and the AMSTAR 2 checklist. The method of network meta-analysis was chosen to evaluate randomized controlled trial published on tissue repair and comparing Lichtenstein respectively with Desarda and Shouldice techniques. The following parameters: operative time, recurrence, complications (general, intraoperative, Surgical Surgical Site Occurrences), VAS score on postoperative day 1, numbness, chronic pain and return to daily activities.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud Fourteen RCTs, involving 2791 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final analysis. The anchored indirect treatment comparison showed that Desarda's technique requires a significantly shorter operative time (MD: −12.9 min; 95% CI: −20.6 to −5.2) and has a quicker recovery (MD: −6.6 days; 95% CI: −11.7 to −1.4). Outcomes concerning intraoperative complications, early postoperative pain, seroma/hematoma, hydrocele and infection rates, recurrence, numbness and chronic pain were similar among the two techniques.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud Desarda's hernia repair can be a valuable alternative to Shouldice technique for the treatment of primary inguinal hernia repair if a non-mesh technique is chosen, because of its reproducibility and quicker postoperative recovery. We recommend performing well designed prospective studies comparing both techniques directly.

Background The terms "Hernia Center" (HC) and Hernia Surgeon" (HS) have gained more and more popularity in recent years. Nevertheless, there is lack of protocols and methods for certification of their activities and results. The Italian Society of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery proposes a method for different levels of certification. Methods The national board created a commission, with the task to define principles and structure of an accreditation program. The discussion of each topic was preceded by a Systematic Review, according to PRISMA Guidelines and Methodology. In case of lack or inadequate data from literature, the parameter was fixed trough a Commission discussion. Results The Commission defined a certification process including: "FLC - First level Certification": restricted to single surgeon, it is given under request and proof of a formal completion of the learning curve process for the basic procedures and an adequate year volume of operations. "Second level certification": Referral Center for Abdominal Wall Surgery. It is a public or private structure run by at least two already certified and confirmed FLC surgeons. "Third level certification": High Specialization Center for Abdominal Wall Surgery. It is a public or private structure, already confirmed as Referral Centers, run by at least three surgeons (two certified and confirmed with FLC and one research fellow in abdominal wall surgery). Both levels of certification have to meet the Surgical Requirements and facilities criteria fixed by the Commission. Conclusion The creation of different types of Hernia Centers is directed to create two different entities offering the same surgical quality with separate mission: the Referral Center being more dedicated to clinical and surgical activity and High Specialization Centers being more directed to scientific tasks.

Purpose To investigate pain and other complications following inguinal hernioplasty performed by the Lichtenstein technique with mesh fixation by fibrin glue or sutures. Methods Five hundred and twenty patients were enrolled in this 12-month observational multicenter study and received either sutures or fibrin glue (Tissucol/Tisseel) based on the preference of the surgeon. Pain, numbness, discomfort, recurrence, and other complications were assessed postoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Pain intensity was assessed by a visual analog scale VAS; 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain]). Results One hundred and seventy-one patients received sutures and 349 received fibrin glue. During the early postoperative phase, 87.4% of patients in the fibrin glue group and 76.6% of patients in the sutures group were complication-free (P = 0.001). Patients who received fibrin glue were also less likely to experience hematoma/ecchymosis than those in the suture group (both P = 0.001). The mean pain score was significantly lower in the fibrin group than the sutures group (2.5 vs. 3.2, P

BACKGROUND: Re-approximation of the rectal muscles along the midline is recommended by some groups as a rule for incisional and ventral hernia repairs. The introduction of laparoscopic repair has generated a debate because it is not aimed at restoring abdominal wall integrity but instead aims just to bridge the defect. Whether restoration of the abdominal integrity has a real impact on patient mobility is questionable, and the available literature provides no definitive answer. The present study aims to compare the functional results of laparoscopic bridging with those of re-approximation of the rectal muscle in the midline as a mesh repair for ventral and incisional abdominal defect through an "open" access. We hypothesized that, for the type of defect suitable for a laparoscopic bridging, the effect of an anatomical reconstruction is near negligible, thus not a fixed rule. METHODS AND DESIGN: The LABOR trial is a multicenter, prospective, two-arm, single-blinded, randomized trial. Patients of more than 60 years of age with a defect of less than 10 cm at its greatest diameter will be randomly submitted to open Rives or laparoscopic defect repair. All the participating patients will have a preoperative evaluation of their abdominal wall strength and mobility along with volumetry, respiratory function test, intraabdominal pressure and quality of life assessment.The primary outcome will be the difference in abdominal wall strength as measured by a double leg-lowering test performed at 12 months postoperatively. The secondary outcomes will be the rate of recurrence and changes in baseline abdominal mobility, respiratory function tests, intraabdominal pressure, CT volumetry and quality of life at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. DISCUSSION: The study will help to define the most suitable treatment for small-medium incisional and primary hernias in patients older than 60 years. Given a similar mid-term recurrence rate in both groups, if the trial shows no differences among treatments (acceptance of the null-hypothesis), then the choice of whether to submit a patient to one intervention will be made on the basis of cost and the surgeon's experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93729016.