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: Nomenclature for mesh insertion during ventral hernia repair is inconsistent and confusing. Several terms, including 'inlay', 'sublay' and 'underlay', can refer to the same anatomical planes in the indexed literature. This frustrates comparisons of surgical practice and may invalidate meta-analyses comparing surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to establish an international classification of abdominal wall planes., Methods: A Delphi study was conducted involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall surgeons. Different terms describing anterior abdominal wall planes were identified via literature review and expert consensus. The initial list comprised 59 possible terms. Panellists completed a questionnaire that suggested a list of options for individual abdominal wall planes. Consensus on a term was predefined as occurring if selected by at least 80 per cent of panellists. Terms scoring less than 20 per cent were removed., Results: Voting started August 2018 and was completed by January 2019. In round 1, 43 terms (73 per cent) were selected by less than 20 per cent of panellists and 37 new terms were suggested, leaving 53 terms for round 2. Four planes reached consensus in round 2, with the terms 'onlay', 'inlay', 'preperitoneal' and 'intraperitoneal'. Thirty-five terms (66 per cent) were selected by less than 20 per cent of panellists and were removed. After round 3, consensus was achieved for 'anterectus', 'interoblique', 'retro-oblique' and 'retromuscular'. Default consensus was achieved for the 'retrorectus' and 'transversalis fascial' planes., Conclusion: Consensus concerning abdominal wall planes was agreed by 20 internationally recognized surgeons. Adoption should improve communication and comparison among surgeons and research studies., (© 2019 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate closure materials and suture techniques for emergency and elective laparotomies. The primary outcome was incisional hernia after 12 months, and the secondary outcomes were burst abdomen and surgical site infection., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted until September 2017. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated by at least 3 assessors using critical appraisal checklists. Meta-analyses were performed., Results: A total of 23 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. There was no evidence from RCTs using the same suture technique in both study arms that any suture material (fast-absorbable/slowly absorbable/non-absorbable) is superior in reducing incisional hernias. There is no evidence that continuous suturing is superior in reducing incisional hernias compared to interrupted suturing. When using a slowly absorbable suture for continuous suturing in elective midline closure, the small bites technique results in significantly less incisional hernias than a large bites technique (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19, 0.86)., Conclusions: There is no high-quality evidence available concerning the best suture material or technique to reduce incisional hernia rate when closing a laparotomy. When using a slowly absorbable suture and a continuous suturing technique with small tissue bites, the incisional hernia rate is significantly reduced compared with a large bites technique.

Background: International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project., Methods: The guidelines development group consisted of general, hernia and colorectal surgeons, a biostatistician and a biologist, from 14 European countries. These guidelines conformed to the AGREE II standards and the GRADE methodology. The databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and the gray literature through OpenGrey were searched. Quality assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. The guidelines were presented at the 38th European Hernia Society Congress and each key question was evaluated in a consensus voting of congress participants., Results: End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia, compared to other types of stomas. Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Currently available classifications are not validated; however, we suggest the use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting. There is insufficient evidence on the policy of watchful waiting, the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. The use of a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon construction of an end colostomy is strongly recommended. No such recommendation can be made for other types of stomas at present. It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, a mesh without a hole is suggested in preference to a keyhole mesh when laparoscopic repair is performed., Conclusion: An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.

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.

Introduction: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a frequent complication of abdominal surgery causing increased morbidity. Triclosan-coated sutures are recommended to reduce SSI. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the rate of SSI in abdominal surgery when using triclosan-coated or uncoated sutures for fascial closure., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science including publications until August 2017. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated using critical appraisal checklists from SIGN. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis were performed with Review Manager v5.3 and TSA software, respectively., Results: Eight RCTs on abdominal wall closure were included in the meta-analysis. In an overall comparison including both triclosan-coated Vicryl and PDS sutures for fascial closure, triclosan-coated sutures were superior in reducing the rate of SSI (OR 0.67; 0.46-0.98). When evaluating PDS sutures separately, there was no effect of triclosan-coating on the rate of SSI (OR 0.85; 0.61-1.17). Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size (RIS) of 797 patients for triclosan-coated Vicryl sutures was almost reached with an accrued information size (AIS) of 795 patients. For triclosan-coated PDS sutures an AIS of 2707 patients was obtained, but the RIS was estimated to be 18,693 patients., Conclusion: Triclosan-coated Vicryl sutures for abdominal fascial closure decrease the risk of SSI significantly and based on the trial sequential analysis further RCTs will not change that outcome. There was no effect on SSI rate with the use of triclosan-coated PDS sutures for abdominal fascial closure, and it is unknown whether additional RCTs will change that.

Background: There is a high incidence of incisional hernias in specific high-risk patient populations. For these patients, the prophylactic placement of mesh during closure of the abdominal wall incision has been investigated in several prospective studies., Objective: This article aims to summarize and synthetize the currently available evidence on prophylactic meshes in a narrative review., Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews were performed on the use of prophylactic meshes in different indications: midline laparotomies, stoma reversal wounds, and permanent stoma., Results: High-quality data from randomized trials shows that prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh implantation is safe and effective, both in prevention of incisional hernias after midline laparotomies and during construction of an elective end colostomy. It should be considered in patients with a high risk for incisional hernia development, such as those receiving open abdominal aortic aneurysm, obesity, or colorectal cancer surgery. It is strongly recommended for construction of an elective permanent end colostomy. For midline laparotomies, both the retromuscular and onlay positions of a prophylactic mesh seem equally effective and safe. For parastomal hernia prevention, only the retromuscular prophylactic mesh and its use for end colostomies has been proven to be effective and safe. No data support the choice of a biological mesh or a synthetic absorbable mesh over a non-absorbable synthetic mesh, even in clean-contaminated surgical procedures. No data yet support the standard use of prophylactic mesh when closing the wound during closure of a temporary stoma., Conclusion: Prophylactic mesh implantation should be standard of care during construction of an elective end colostomy and will become standard of care for midline laparotomies in patients at a high risk of incisional hernias.

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: There is a high incidence of incisional hernias in specific high-risk patient populations. For these patients, the prophylactic placement of mesh during closure of the abdominal wall incision has been investigated in several prospective studies., Objective: This article aims to summarize and synthetize the currently available evidence on prophylactic meshes in a narrative review., Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews were performed on the use of prophylactic meshes in different indications: midline laparotomies, stoma reversal wounds, and permanent stoma., Results: High-quality data from randomized trials shows that prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh implantation is safe and effective, both in prevention of incisional hernias after midline laparotomies and during construction of an elective end colostomy. It should be considered in patients with a high risk for incisional hernia development, such as those receiving open abdominal aortic aneurysm, obesity, or colorectal cancer surgery. It is strongly recommended for construction of an elective permanent end colostomy. For midline laparotomies, both the retromuscular and onlay positions of a prophylactic mesh seem equally effective and safe. For parastomal hernia prevention, only the retromuscular prophylactic mesh and its use for end colostomies has been proven to be effective and safe. No data support the choice of a biological mesh or a synthetic absorbable mesh over a non-absorbable synthetic mesh, even in clean-contaminated surgical procedures. No data yet support the standard use of prophylactic mesh when closing the wound during closure of a temporary stoma., Conclusion: Prophylactic mesh implantation should be the standard of care during construction of an elective end colostomy and will become the standard of care for midline laparotomies in patients at high risk of incisional hernias.

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.

Many publications are available on the best surgical techniques and treatment of incisional hernias with reports of experiences and randomized clinical studies at the two extremes of the evidence scale. The ultimate proof of the best operative technique has, however, not yet been achieved. In practically no other field of surgery are the variability and the resulting potential aims of surgery so great. The aim of surgery is to provide patients with the optimal recommendation out of a catalogue of possibilities from a holistic perspective. This article describes the surgical techniques using meshes for strengthening (in combination with an anatomical reconstruction) and for replacement of the abdominal wall (with bridging of the defect).

Background: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has been developed with the objective to reduce surgical trauma, decrease associated surgical stress and to improve cosmetic outcome. However, concerns have been raised regarding the risk of trocar-site hernia following this approach. Previous meta-analyses have suggested a trend toward higher hernia rates, but have failed to demonstrate a significant difference between single-incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery., Method: Medline, AMED, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched up to May 2014. Randomized controlled trials comparing single-incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery were considered for inclusion. Studies with patients aged less than 18 years and those reporting on robotic surgery were disregarded. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to measure the comparative risk of trocar-site hernia following single-incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery., Results: Nineteen randomized trials encompassing 1705 patients were included. Trocar-site hernia occurred in 2.2% of patients in the single-incision group and in 0.7% of patients in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (odds ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval 1.00-5.08, p = 0.05). Sensitivity analysis of quality randomized trials validated the outcome estimates of the primary analysis. There was no heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 0%) and no evidence of publication bias., Conclusion: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery involving entry into the peritoneal cavity through the umbilicus is associated with a slightly higher risk of trocar-site hernia than conventional laparoscopy. Its effect on long-term morbidity and quality of life is a matter for further investigation.

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.)

The recurrence rate of surgical treatment of incisional hernia is high. The material and surgical technique used to close the abdominal wall following every surgery contribute as important risk factors in incisional hernia formation. However, by optimising abdominal wall closure, many patients can be spared from developing this type of complication. The European Hernia Society has established a Guidelines Development Group with a goal to research the literature and write a series of recommendations of how to close the abdomen and minimize the risk of incisional hernia in accordance with the principles of evidence-based medicine. To decrease the incidence of incisional hernias, the following is recommended: To utilise a non-midline approach to a laparotomy whenever possible. To perform a continuous suturing technique using a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in a single layer aponeurotic closure technique. To perform the small bites technique with a suture to wound length (SL/WL) ratio at least 4/1. Not to close the peritoneum separately. To avoid rapidly resorbable materials. To consider using a prophylactic mesh in high-risk patients. To use the smallest trocar size adequate for the procedure and closing the fascial defect if trocars larger or equal to 10 mm are used in laparoscopic surgery. Key words: incisional hernia laparotomy laparotomy closure suturing material.

Background: The material and the surgical technique used to close an abdominal wall incision are important determinants of the risk of developing an incisional hernia. Optimising closure of abdominal wall incisions holds a potential to prevent patients suffering from incisional hernias and for important costs savings in health care., Methods: The European Hernia Society formed a Guidelines Development Group to provide guidelines for all surgical specialists who perform abdominal incisions in adult patients on the materials and methods used to close the abdominal wall. The guidelines were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and methodological guidance was taken from Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). The literature search included publications up to April 2014. The guidelines were written using the AGREE II instrument. An update of these guidelines is planned for 2017., Results: For many of the Key Questions that were studied no high quality data was detected. Therefore, some strong recommendations could be made but, for many Key Questions only weak recommendations or no recommendation could be made due to lack of sufficient evidence., Recommendations: To decrease the incidence of incisional hernias it is strongly recommended to utilise a non-midline approach to a laparotomy whenever possible. For elective midline incisions, it is strongly recommended to perform a continuous suturing technique and to avoid the use of rapidly absorbable sutures. It is suggested using a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in a single layer aponeurotic closure technique without separate closure of the peritoneum. A small bites technique with a suture to wound length (SL/WL) ratio at least 4/1 is the current recommended method of fascial closure. Currently, no recommendations can be given on the optimal technique to close emergency laparotomy incisions. Prophylactic mesh augmentation appears effective and safe and can be suggested in high-risk patients, like aortic aneurysm surgery and obese patients. For laparoscopic surgery, it is suggested using the smallest trocar size adequate for the procedure and closure of the fascial defect if trocars larger or equal to 10 mm are used. For single incision laparoscopic surgery, we suggest meticulous closure of the fascial incision to avoid an increased risk of incisional hernias.

Background: The literature dealing with abdominal wall surgery is often flawed due to lack of adherence to accepted reporting standards and statistical methodology., Materials and Methods: The EuraHS Working Group (European Registry of Abdominal Wall Hernias) organised a consensus meeting of surgical experts and researchers with an interest in abdominal wall surgery, including a statistician, the editors of the journal Hernia and scientists experienced in meta-analysis. Detailed discussions took place to identify the basic ground rules necessary to improve the quality of research reports related to abdominal wall reconstruction., Results: A list of recommendations was formulated including more general issues on the scientific methodology and statistical approach. Standards and statements are available, each depending on the type of study that is being reported: the CONSORT statement for the Randomised Controlled Trials, the TREND statement for non randomised interventional studies, the STROBE statement for observational studies, the STARLITE statement for literature searches, the MOOSE statement for metaanalyses of observational studies and the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A number of recommendations were made, including the use of previously published standard definitions and classifications relating to hernia variables and treatment; the use of the validated Clavien-Dindo classification to report complications in hernia surgery; the use of "time-to-event analysis" to report data on "freedom-of-recurrence" rather than the use of recurrence rates, because it is more sensitive and accounts for the patients that are lost to follow-up compared with other reporting methods., Conclusion: A set of recommendations for reporting outcome results of abdominal wall surgery was formulated as guidance for researchers. It is anticipated that the use of these recommendations will increase the quality and meaning of abdominal wall surgery research.

Background: Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication of abdominal surgery. Its incidence has been reported as high as 39.9%. Many factors influence IH rates. Of these, surgical technique is the only factor directly controlled by the surgeon. There is much evidence in the literature on the optimal midline laparotomy closure technique. Despite the high level of evidence, this optimal closure technique has not met wide acceptance in the surgical community. In preparation of a clinical trial, the PRINCIPLES trial, a literature review was conducted to find the best evidence based technique for abdominal wall closure after midline laparotomy., Methods: An Embase search was performed. Articles describing closure of the fascia after midline laparotomy by different suture techniques and/or suture materials were selected., Results: Fifteen studies were identified, including five meta-analyses. Analysis of the literature showed significant lower IH rates with single layer closure, using a continuous technique with slowly absorbable suture material. No significant difference in IH incidence was found comparing slowly absorbable and non absorbable sutures. Furthermore, a suture length to wound length ratio of four or more and short stitch length significantly decreased IH rates., Conclusions: Careful analysis of the literature indicates that an evidenced based optimal midline laparotomy closure technique can be identified. This technique involves single layer closure with a running suture, using a slowly absorbable suture with a suture length to wound length ratio of four or more and a short stitch length. We adopt this technique as the PRINCIPLES technique.

Background: Parastomal hernia is a frequent complication of intestinal stomata. Mesh repair gives the best results, with the mesh inserted via laparotomy or laparoscopically. It was the aim of this retrospective multicenter study to determine the early and late results of the laparoscopically performed, modified Sugarbaker technique with ePTFE mesh., Methods: From 2005 to 2010, a total of 61 consecutive patients (mean age = 61 years), with a symptomatic parastomal hernia, underwent laparoscopic repair using the modified Sugarbaker technique with ePTFE mesh. Fifty-five patients had a colostomy, 4 patients an ileostomy, and 2 a urostomy according to Bricker. The records of the patients were reviewed with respect to patient characteristics, postoperative morbidity, and mortality. All patients underwent physical examination after a follow-up of at least 1 year to detect a recurrent hernia. Morbidity rate was 19 % and included wound infection (n = 1), ileus (n = 2), trocar site bleeding (n = 2), reintervention (n = 2), and pneumonia (n = 1). One patient died in the postoperative period due to metastasis of lung carcinoma that caused bowel obstruction. Concomitant incisional hernias were detected in 25 of 61 patients (41 %) and could be repaired at the same time in all cases. A recurrent hernia was found in three patients at physical examination, and in one patient an asymptomatic recurrence was found on a CT scan. The overall recurrence rate was 6.6 % after a mean follow-up of 26 months., Conclusion: The laparoscopic Sugarbaker technique is a safe procedure for repairing parastomal hernias. In our study, the overall morbidity was 19 % and the recurrence rate was 6.6 % after a mean follow-up of 26 months. Moreover, the laparoscopic approach revealed concomitant hernias in 41 % of the patients, which could be repaired successfully at the same time.

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.

Several mesh devices for the treatment of umbilical and other small ventral hernias have become available in recent years. These meshes have a dual layer consisting of a permanent or temporary barrier against adhesion formation between the viscera and the intraperitoneally exposed part of the mesh. We have seen several patients with serious late complications of these meshes placed intraperitoneally. Some of these patients needed small bowel resection and mesh removal. Others developed a recurrence because of improper deployment of the mesh in the intraperitoneal position. We think that, if preperitoneal deployment of such mesh devices is possible, this should be the preferred position, notwithstanding the fact that these meshes have a dual layer. There is a complete lack of convincing data on these mesh devices in the medical literature. No long-term data have been published, and, for three of the four mesh devices available, no publications on their use in humans were found. We think that surgeons adopting innovative mesh devices should register and follow their patients prospectively, at least until there are enough published studies with sufficiently large patient samples, acceptable follow up times, and favourable outcomes.

Purpose: During sternectomy and pedicled omental flap transposition for the treatment of deep sternal wound infections, an ectopic diaphragmatic aperture is created. This may be the site of an iatrogenic diaphragmatic hernia, which may result in the herniation of intra-abdominal organs, and is difficult to repair. Although this complication was described as early as 1991, no effective treatment for this condition has been described previously., Methods: The defect in poststernectomy diaphragmatic hernias has features similar to other incisional abdominal wall hernias, as well as to parastomal hernias and hiatal diaphragmatic hernias. We describe our laparoscopic approach developed from experience with these other types of hernias. We use an intraperitoneal flat mesh without keyhole. Fixation of the mesh to the anterior abdominal wall and to the diaphragm is done with a combination of sutures and spiral tackers. The omental pedicle is lateralised, fixed to the diaphragm and covered with the mesh. Special caution is needed when spiral tackers are applied to the diaphragm, because fatal complications of pericardial and cardiac injury have been described in laparoscopic hiatal diaphragmatic hernia repair., Results: We used this technique in four patients who presented with a symptomatic poststernectomy diaphragmatic hernia. No procedure-related intra-operative or postoperative complications occurred. With a follow up of at least 12 months, no clinical or radiographic recurrence of diaphragmatic herniation has been encountered., Conclusion: We describe a laparoscopic technique to repair this difficult diaphragmatic hernia used in four patients, with a good clinical and computed tomographic outcome at 12 months.

Purpose: A classification for primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias is needed to allow comparison of publications and future studies on these hernias. It is important to know whether the populations described in different studies are comparable., Methods: Several members of the EHS board and some invitees gathered for 2 days to discuss the development of an EHS classification for primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias., Results: To distinguish primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias, a separate classification based on localisation and size as the major risk factors was proposed. Further data are needed to define the optimal size variable for classification of incisional hernias in order to distinguish subgroups with differences in outcome., Conclusions: A classification for primary abdominal wall hernias and a division into subgroups for incisional abdominal wall hernias, concerning the localisation of the hernia, was formulated.

After laparoscopic repair of ventral or incisional hernias, the recurrence rates reported are around 4%. Different mechanisms for the recurrences have been identified. We report two cases in which the patients were operated on laparoscopically for recurrence after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. In both cases, the site of the recurrent hernia was situated at the transfascial fixation sutures. Patients were treated by laparoscopy with a larger intraperitoneal mesh covering the new hernia and the old mesh.

Background: To determine the factors that influence hospital death and neurologic complications after surgery on the thoracic aorta using circulatory arrest and antegrade selective cerebral perfusion., Methods: From May 1989 through April 1997, 106 patients underwent surgery on the thoracic aorta using circulatory arrest and antegrade selective cerebral perfusion. Mean age was 64.0 +/- 11.5 years. Unilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion was used in 37 patients (35%), bihemispheric antegrade cerebral perfusion in 69 patients (65%). Mean antegrade cerebral perfusion time was 50.5 +/- 20.5 minutes. Indication for surgery was atherosclerotic aneurysm in 60 (56.5%) patients, postdissection aneurysm in 26 (24.4%), acute type A dissection in 16 (15.1%), other in 4 (4.0%)., Results: Hospital mortality was 8.5% (n = 9; 70% CL: 5.8%-11.2%). Independent predictors of hospital mortality were rethoracotomy (odds ratio 5.7, p = 0.02), postoperative temporary (odds ratio 17.3, p = 0.02) or permanent (odds ratio 7.5, p = 0.03) neurologic dysfunction, postoperative dialysis (odds ratio 9.9, p = 0.008). Bilateral antegrade selective cerebral perfusion had a favorable impact on hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.08, p = 0.007). Temporary neurologic dysfunction occurred in 3.8% of patients (n = 4; 70% CL: 2.0%-5.6%); preoperative hemodynamic instability (odds ratio 14.8, p = 0.05) and perioperative technical problems (odds ratio 22.2, p = 0.033) were independent determinants of temporary neurologic dysfunction. Permanent central neurologic damage occurred in 5.4% of patients (n = 6; 70% CL: 3.2%-7.6%). Preoperative hemodynamic instability (odds ratio 18.9, p = 0.009) and approach through a left thoracotomy (odds ratio 9.4, p = 0.031) were significant predictors of permanent neurologic damage., Conclusions: Hospital mortality is affected significantly by the choice of technique used for antegrade cerebral perfusion. The incidence of both temporary and permanent postoperative central neurologic damage is influenced by preoperative hemodynamic instability. Duration of cerebral perfusion had no influence on the postoperative neurologic outcome.

Background: A single-institution experience with completion pneumonectomy was analyzed to assess operative mortality and late outcome., Methods: A consecutive series of 138 completion pneumonectomies from 1975 to 1995 was reviewed, and compared with single-stage pneumonectomies performed during the same period., Results: Hospital mortality was 13.8%, including 4 intraoperative and 15 postoperative deaths. Hospital mortality was the same for lung cancer (13.2%) as for benign disease (15.5%). It was 37.5% if an early complication of the primary operation was the indication (p = 0.01). If infection of the pleural space was the indication for completion pneumonectomy, hospital mortality was 23.3% (p > 0.05). In 760 single-stage pneumonectomies hospital mortality was 8.7% (p > 0.05). Five-year actuarial survival after completion pneumonectomy was 42.5% for all patients, 32.3% for those with lung cancer, and 58.8% for those with benign disease., Conclusions: Hospital mortality for completion pneumonectomy was the same for malignant as for benign indications. It was significantly higher if completion pneumonectomy was done for an early complication of the primary operation. Results at long term of lung cancer patients were the same for single-stage pneumonectomy and completion pneumonectomy.