Search

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.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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.