Search

Purpose: Recent guidelines have recommended minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for unilateral inguinal hernia due to reduced chronic pain. The most performed approaches consist of posterior mesh placement by the transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) techniques. However, it remains debatable whether the advantage of those techniques stems from the MIS approach or posterior mesh placement or both. As the transrectus preperitoneal (TREPP) technique is an open option for posterior mesh placement, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing TREPP and MIS techniques for groin hernia repair. Material and Methods: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing TREPP and MIS techniques for groin hernia repair. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, cumulative surgical site occurrences (SSO), surgical site infection (SSI), and postoperative pain. Results: Twenty-nine studies were screened, and eight were thoroughly reviewed. Three studies were included, of which two compared TREPP with the TEP technique, and one compared TREPP with both TEP and TAPP techniques. We found lower SSI rates for the MIS approaches (0.61% versus 0.33%; risk ratios (RRs) 3.96; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-15.16; P = .04). We did not find statistically significant differences regarding recurrence (2.42% versus 2.51%; RR 1.01; P = .98), postoperative pain (4.2% versus 6.4%; RR 0.61; P = .4), and SSO (4.2% versus 4.0%; RR 0.6; P = .43) between TREPP and MIS techniques. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found a lower SSI for the MIS repair but did not find differences regarding recurrence, SSO, and postoperative pain. More studies are required to provide a more accurate conclusion about this topic.

Purpose: Laparoscopic intracorporeal rectus aponeuroplasty (LIRA), emerged as a method that combines benefits from minimally invasive and abdominal wall reconstruction with defect closure, restoring the midline without tension by folding the posterior aponeurosis of both abdominal rectus muscles and using intraperitoneal mesh repair. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the existing evidence on LIRA results and potential applications., Source: A thorough search of Cochrane Central, Scopus, SciELO, LILACS, and PubMed/MEDLINE, focusing on studies that explored LIRA's possible applications and results was performed. Key outcomes evaluated included recurrence, seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection (SSI), and length of hospital stay. We included both analytic data and descriptive studies., Principal Findings: Out of 128 screened studies, three met the inclusion criteria and comprised 113 patients, of which 69 (61.1%) were operated using LIRA. Three studies comprised two case series of conventional and robotic LIRA repair, and one comparative study of LIRA versus intraperitoneal underlay mesh repair (IPUM plus). No surgical site infections were reported. Seroma rates ranged between 11.1% and 50%, while no bleeding or hematoma was noted. There were no patients presenting recurrence in a median follow-up ranging from 12 to 15 months, despite the comparative study reporting a 4.4% rate of bulging without clinical recurrence. The mean length of hospital stay ranged from 12 to 36 h. LIRA presented no differences in postoperative complications compared to the IPUM plus technique., Conclusion: LIRA is linked to low recurrence and postoperative complications. It is a novel approach with potential applications in various types of primary and incisional ventral hernias., Competing Interests: FM discloses consulting fees from BD, Intuitive, Integra, DeepBlue, Allergan and Medtronic, outside the submitted study. 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 © 2024 Balthazar da Silveira, Rasador, Marcolin, Kasakewitch, Lima, Morales-Conde and Malcher.)

Aim: Hernia registries report that guidelines are not always implemented by general surgeons and suggest that the success rate of this procedure is higher in hernia specialty centers. There are many definitions of hernia centers, but their objectives consist of improving healthcare by homogenizing the clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze hernia centers' definitions and compare hernia centers with non-specialized centers. Material and Methods: Cochrane Central, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies defining a hernia center or comparing hernia centers and non-specialized centers. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, surgical site events, hospital length of stay (LOS), and operative time. We performed subgroup analyses of hernia type. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio. Results: 3,260 studies were screened and 88 were thoroughly reviewed. Thirteen studies were included. Five studies defined a hernia center and eight studies, comprising 141,366 patients, compared a hernia center with a non-specialized center. Generally, the definitions were similar in decision-making and educational requirements but differed in structural aspects and the steps required for the certification. We found lower recurrence rates for hernia centers for both inguinal (1.08% versus 5.11%; RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.23; p < 0.001) and ventral hernia (3.2% vs. 8.9%; RR 0.425; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64; p < 0.001). Hernia centers also presented lower surgical site infection for both ventral (4.3% vs. 11.9%; RR 0.435; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.90; p = 0.026) and inguinal (0.1% vs. 0.52%; RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.99; p = 0.49) repair. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis support that a hernia center establishment improves postoperative outcomes data. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display&#95;record.php?ID=CRD42024522263, PROSPERO CRD42024522263., Competing Interests: The 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 © 2024 da Silveira, Rasador, Lima, Nogueira, Sanha, Kasakewitch, Cavazzola, Sreeramoju and Malcher.)

Background: The type of mesh used in inguinal hernia repairs remains controversial. There are limited data looking at specific mesh-related complications. The objective of this study is to assess postoperative 90-day outcomes in lightweight (LW) and heavyweight (HW) anatomical mesh in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs. Methods: A retrospective single-center database was queried for all adult minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs with anatomical mesh from July 2016 to March 2021. Demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed. Results: Six hundred forty-seven minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs were performed with 423 (65.3%) using HW and 224 (24.7%) using LW mesh. There was no difference in mean body mass index between the groups (26.9 ± 4.2 kg/m 2 in the LW group and 27.1 ± 4.2 kg/m 2 in the HW group; P  = .69). There was no difference in type of mesh fixation used in either group, with tacker being the most common. There was no difference in postoperative emergency department (ED) visit ( P  = .625), readmission rates ( P  = .562), or postoperative complications between the two groups. Fifty patients presented with seroma within 90 days. There were five recurrences in each group and only one surgical site infection in the LW within 90 days. Multivariate logistic regression was performed, and predictors of seroma formation included age (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; confidence interval [CI] 1-1.04; P  = .02) and hypertension (HTN) (OR 1.8; CI 1.03-3.4; P  = .039). HW mesh was not associated with seroma formation (OR 1.04; CI 0.5-1.9; P  = .895). Similarly, HW mesh was not associated with surgical site occurrences (SSO) (OR 1.04; CI 0.5-1.8; P  = .872). HTN was associated with SSO (OR 1.74; CI 1-3.05; P  = .048). Conclusion: Our study did not favor the use of LW or HW mesh when comparing postoperative complications or clinical outcomes. HW mesh was not associated with either seroma formation or SSO.