Search

Background: It is unclear whether an open or laparoscopic approach results in the best outcomes for repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias. The aim of the study was to evaluate the rates of 90-day readmission and reoperation for complication, together with rate of operation for recurrence after either open or laparoscopic mesh repair for primary umbilical or epigastric hernias with defect widths above 1 cm., Methods: A merge of data between the Danish Hernia Database and the National Patient Registry provided data from 2007 to 2018 on perioperative information, 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation for complication, and long-term operation for hernia recurrence., Results: A total of 6855 patients were included, of whom 4106 (59.9%) and 2749 (40.1%) patients had an open or laparoscopic repair, respectively. There were significantly more patients readmitted with a superficial surgical site infection 2.5% (102/4106) after open repair compared with laparoscopic repair (0.5% (15/2749), P < 0.001. The 90-day reoperation rate for complications was significantly higher for open repairs 5.0% (205/4106) compared with laparoscopic repairs 2.7% (75/2749), P < 0.001. The incidence of a reoperation for a severe condition was significantly increased after laparoscopic repair 1.5% (41/2749) compared with open repair 0.8% (34/4106), P = 0.010. The 4-year cumulative incidence of operation for hernia recurrence was 3.5% after open and 4.2% after laparoscopic repairs, P = 0.302., Conclusions: Recurrence rates were comparable between open and laparoscopic repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias. Open repair was associated with a significantly higher rate of readmission and reoperation due to surgical site infection, whereas the rate of reoperation due to a severe complication was significantly higher after laparoscopic repair., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Primary and incisional ventral hernia trials collect unstandardized inconsistent data, limiting data interpretation and comparison. This study aimed to create two minimum data sets for primary and incisional ventral hernia interventional trials to standardize data collection and improve trial comparison. To support these data sets, standardized patient-reported outcome measures and trial methodology criteria were created., Methods: To construct these data sets, nominal group technique methodology was employed, involving 15 internationally recognized abdominal wall surgeons and two patient representatives. Initially a maximum data set was created from previous systematic and panellist reviews. Thereafter, three stages of voting took place: stage 1, selection of the number of variables for data set inclusion; stage 2, selection of variables to be included; and stage 3, selection of variable definitions and detection methods. A steering committee interpreted and analysed the data., Results: The maximum data set contained 245 variables. The three stages of voting commenced in October 2019 and had been completed by July 2020. The final primary ventral hernia data set included 32 variables, the incisional ventral hernia data set included 40 variables, the patient-reported outcome measures tool contained 25 questions, and 40 methodological criteria were chosen. The best known variable definitions were selected for accurate variable description. CT was selected as the optimal preoperative descriptor of hernia morphology. Standardized follow-up at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years was selected., Conclusion: These minimum data sets, patient-reported outcome measures, and methodological criteria have allowed creation of a manual for investigators aiming to undertake primary ventral hernia or incisional ventral hernia interventional trials. Adopting these data sets will improve trial methods and comparisons., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Although laparoscopic repair of incisional hernias decreases the incidence of wound complications compared with open repair, there has been rising concern related to intraperitoneal mesh placement. The aim of this study was to examine outcomes after open or laparoscopic elective incisional hernia mesh repair on a nationwide basis., Methods: This study analysed merged data from the Danish Hernia Database and the National Patient Registry on perioperative information, 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation for complication, and long-term operation for hernia recurrence among patients who underwent primary repair of an incisional hernia between 2007 and 2018., Results: A total of 3090 (57.5 per cent) and 2288 (42.5 per cent) patients had surgery by a laparoscopic and open approach respectively. The defect was closed in 865 of 3090 laparoscopic procedures (28.0 per cent). The median follow-up time was 4.0 (i.q.r. 1.8-6.8) years. Rates of readmission (502 of 3090 (16.2 per cent) versus 442 of 2288 (19.3 per cent); P = 0.003) and reoperation for complication (216 of 3090 (7.0 per cent) versus 288 of 2288 (12.5 per cent); P < 0.001) were significantly lower for laparoscopic than open repairs. Reoperation for bowel obstruction or bowel resection was twice as common after laparoscopic repair compared with open repair (20 of 3090 (0.6 per cent) versus 6 of 2288 (0.3 per cent); P = 0.044). Patients were significantly less likely to undergo repair of recurrence following laparoscopic compared with open repair of defect widths 2-6 cm (P = 0.002)., Conclusion: Laparoscopic intraperitoneal mesh repair for incisional hernia should still be considered for fascial defects between 2 and 6 cm, because of decreased rates of early complications and repair of hernia recurrence compared with open repair., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

In 2014 the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias". Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature., Methods: For the development of the original guidelines all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based-Medicine. For the present update all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne) the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included., Results: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite still insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields., Conclusion: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initially guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

In 2014, the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias." Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature., Methods: For the development of the original guidelines, all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For the present update, all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne), the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included., Results: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques, it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields., Conclusion: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initial guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Purpose: Different techniques and mesh materials are used in parastomal hernia repair with recently reported recurrence rates ranging from 10 to 28%. The aim of this cohort study was to examine the risk of recurrence and chronic pain after Sugarbaker or keyhole parastomal hernia repair with intraperitoneal placement of a polyester monofilament macroporous composite mesh., Methods: Data on all patients undergoing parastomal hernia repair with Parietex™ Composite Parastomal Mesh at our institution during a 4-year period were examined. Patients with urostomy were excluded. A team of three experienced surgeons performed all repairs. Follow-up including physical examination was done after 10 days, 6 and 12 months, and hereafter as annual structured telephone interviews. Patients suspected of hernia recurrence were offered computed tomography scan. Chronic pain was defined as pain requiring out-patient visit(s) and/or regular use of analgesics., Results: 79 patients (Sugarbaker, n = 69; keyhole, n = 10) were included. Of those, 72 procedures were performed laparoscopically and seven by open technique. Two patients were reoperated within 30 days with removal of the mesh. In total, seven (9%) patients had parastomal hernia recurrence (reoperation, n = 3; conservative management, n = 4) during follow-up of median 12 months (range 0-49 months). In univariable logistic analyses, type of stoma was associated with recurrence (ileostomy 28% vs colostomy 3%, p = 0.007). Three patients (4%) reported chronic pain., Conclusion: In this study, we found low rates of recurrence and chronic pain following parastomal hernia repair using intraperitoneal reinforcement with a polyester monofilament composite mesh.

We investigated the effects of pre-operative ultrasound-guided bilateral dual transversus abdominis plane blocks on pain when sitting up and pain at rest after laparoscopic appendicectomy. We allocated 28 participants to injection with 60 ml ropivacaine 0.375% and 28 participants to 60 ml isotonic saline. The median (IQR [range]) cumulative pain scores during the first 12 postoperative hours were less after ropivacaine than saline (maximum 120): on sitting, 34 (19-46 [0-59]) vs 50 (30-59 [0-97]), respectively, p = 0.009; and at rest, 25 (10-33 [0-49]) vs 31 (24-43 [0-72]), respectively, p = 0.035. There were no differences in morphine consumption, nausea, vomiting, time in recovery or time to walk., (© 2015 The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: There are no nationwide studies on early outcomes after incisional hernia repair., Methods: This study included all patients aged 18 years or more who had surgery for incisional hernia in Denmark between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2006, and analysed clinical outcomes within 30 days of surgery. Patients having acute operations and those whose hernia repair was secondary to other procedures were excluded., Results: Of a total of 2896 incisional hernia repairs (1872 open, 1024 laparoscopic), 2754 (95.1 per cent) were for primary hernia and 142 (4.9 per cent) for recurrence. The median hospital stay was 1 (range 0-88) day (open, 1 day; laparoscopic, 2 days); 10.0 per cent stayed for more than 6 days. Some 11.2 per cent of patients were readmitted (open, 10.1 per cent; laparoscopic, 13.1 per cent). Major complications were observed in 3.5 per cent (open, 2.8 per cent; laparoscopic, 4.8 per cent) with a total morbidity rate of 10.7 per cent (open, 10.1 per cent; laparoscopic, 11.8 per cent). The mortality rate was 0.4 per cent (open, 0.2 per cent; laparoscopic, 0.7 per cent). Morbidity and mortality were not related to surgical volume., Conclusion: Outcomes after incisional hernia repair seem unsatisfactory., (Copyright (c) 2009 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd.)

Purpose: Small femoral hernias may be difficult to diagnose by physical examination and are sometimes identified unexpectedly by laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of unsuspected femoral hernia discovered during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in two well-defined patient groups. Methods: Patients undergoing laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair from April 2000 until December 2009 ( n = 561) were prospectively registered including data on previous hernia operations and identified type of hernia during surgery. We included patients whose preoperative diagnosis was either bilateral primary inguinal hernia (Primary Group) or recurrent inguinal hernia (Recurrent Group). Results: Four hundred and sixty-one (82.2 %) patients were included in the study, of whom 211 (45.8 %) was in the Primary Group and 250 (54.2 %) in the Recurrent Group. The incidence of unsuspected femoral hernia in the Recurrent Group [23/250, 9.2 % (95 % CI 5.9-13.5 %)] was significantly higher than in the Primary Group [8/211, 3.8 % (95 % CI 1.7-7.3 %)], p = 0.02. Furthermore, 38.1 % of women operated on for a recurrent inguinal hernia, presented with an unsuspected femoral hernia at surgery as opposed to 6.6 % of the men, p = 0.003. Conclusion: Unsuspected femoral hernias are more prevalent in patients with recurrent hernia than in patients with primary hernia in the inguinal region. Femoral hernias may be unrecognized at the primary inguinal hernia operation, or the previous inguinal hernia operation may facilitate the formation of a femoral hernia. Unsuspected femoral hernias are especially frequent in women with recurrent inguinal hernia. In women with a groin hernia, a femoral hernia should always be excluded by laparoscopy or by open exploration of the preperitoneal space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]