Search

Introduction The importance of coronavirus disease (COVID)-free surgical pathways during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been demonstrated. However, the extent of protective measures to be applied against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), particularly before vaccines became available, remained unclear. Methods This retrospective study included all SARS-CoV-2-negative patients admitted to the COVID-free pathway of a regional abdominal surgery hub center in Northern Italy over 12 months, before the vaccination campaign. During the first seven months, basic protective measures against SARS-CoV-2 were adopted (surgical masks, swabs for symptomatic patients, and intra- or interhospital transfers), since patients were treated as effectively negative (standard management). During the last five months, advanced measures were implemented (enhanced personal protections and systematic control swabs), as patients were considered potentially positive (advanced management). The aim of this article was to compare SARS-CoV-2 incidence and surgical outcomes in these periods. Results A total of 283 and 194 patients were admitted under standard and advanced management, respectively; pre-admission data differed only in the rate of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (2.5% versus 6.7%, p= 0.034). The SARS-CoV-2 incidence was 3.9% and 3.1% for standard and advanced periods, respectively (p = 0.835). Two internal outbreaks developed during the standard phase. The advanced protocol significantly increased the rate of patients re-tested for SARS-CoV-2 (83% versus 41.7%, p < 0.001) and allowed early detection of all infections, which remained sporadic. Surgical outcomes were similar. Conclusions Advanced management was instrumental in detecting positive patients early and preventing outbreaks, without affecting surgical results; accordingly, it stands as a reproducible model for future pandemic scenarios., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2022, Frosio et al.)

We reviewed case reports, updated to January 2005, of 2,468 operations for groin hernia in 2,350 patients, including 277 recurrent hernias. The data obtained, following a simple anatomo-clinical classification into three types that could be used to orient surgical strategy, were: type R1--first recurrence of "high" oblique external reducible hernia with small (<2 cm) defect in non-obese patients after pure tissue or mesh repair; type R2--first recurrence of "low" direct reducible hernia with small (<2 cm) defect in non-obese patients after pure tissue or mesh repair; and type R3--all other recurrences, including femoral recurrences, recurrent groin hernia with large defect (inguinal eventration), multi-recurrent hernias, non-reducible contralateral primary or recurrent hernia, and situations compromised by aggravating factors (e.g. obesity) or otherwise not easily included in R1 or R2 after pure tissue or mesh repair.

In a highly advanced era from the point of view of instrumental diagnostic resolution it is, however, not always possible to obtain a precise preoperative diagnosis. Surgery is sometimes the only decisive solution. In April 2003, a 62-year-old male patient was referred to us for umbilical hernia, diastasis recti abdominis and left-sided inguinal hernia; he also complained of pain in the mesogastric-hypogastric region. This site presented with a hard, non-mobile, painful tumefaction at both superficial and deep palpation. The patient was submitted to various diagnostic examinations (pancolonoscopy, CT, X-ray of the digestive tract and angiography), but only surgery allowed us to establish the specific nature of the tumefaction. The operation consisted in the en-bloc removal of an abscess mass affecting intestinal loops, caecum and appendix and at the same time in the repair of the hernia components with the use of prosthesis in a potentially contaminated area. The tumefaction had originated following acute appendicitis episodes that had determined adherences between the appendix, caecum and ileal loops (histologically confirmed). There are situations that require surgery in order to be explicitly diagnosed and solved. Furthermore, although the use of prosthetic materials in the treatment of hernias in association with intestinal resection is an extreme case, it has also been reported in the international literature that nowadays there are no real contraindications to the implantation of a prosthesis in a potentially infected area.

Introduction: Prosthetic repair for abdominal wall hernia currently represents the gold standard. However, it is still difficult to identify the correct indication for prosthetic implant in borderline cases. The authors propose evaluating whether a prosthetic implant is absolutely contraindicated in potentially infected operating fields through the review of literature and personal experience., Materials and Methods: The authors performed ten prosthetic hernia repairs in potentially contaminated areas, with a preliminary preparation of the retromuscular-preperitoneal space hosting the prosthesis implant, and subsequent performance of the major operation., Results: There were neither major nor minor complications with a 21-month follow-up (mean period)., Discussion: It is certain that both in noncomplicated inguinal hernia and in abdominal wall hernia repairs, the use of antibiotics can significantly reduce the number of infections. It is very important to underline that the success of the described procedure can be guaranteed only by an accurate preparation of the preperitoneal space: perfect haemostasis, temporary closure of the space with the insertion of iodine gauzes and suturing the edges, local antibiotic treatment, washing of the cavity, and accurate drainage., Conclusions: Prosthetic repair is the gold standard for inguinal, incisional, and all abdominal wall hernias and should be used, with the method described, even in potentially contaminated areas. The use of a prosthesis has to be avoided in clearly infected cases.

A particular clinical case personally observed is described. On the basis of this case it is evaluated if it can be correct to implant a mesh in potentially contaminated areas, if preperitoneal repair is the best approach in recurrent or difficult hernia repair and if there are specific contraindications in operating elderly patients.