Prediction of successful revision surgery for mesh-related complaints after inguinal hernia and pelvic organ prolapse repair.

PURPOSE: With this retrospective case series, we aim to identify predictors for reduction of pain after mesh revision surgery in patients operated for inguinal hernia or pelvic organ prolapse with a polypropylene implant. Identifying these predictors may aid surgeons to counsel patients and select appropriate candidates for mesh revision surgery. METHODS: Clinical records before and after mesh revision surgery from 221 patients with chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) and 59 patients with pain after pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery were collected at two experienced tertiary referral centers. Primary outcome was patient reported improvement of pain after revision surgery. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to specify predictors for pain reduction. RESULTS: The multivariable logistic regression was performed for each patient group separately. Patients with CPIP had higher chances of improvement of pain when time between mesh placement and mesh revision surgery was longer, with an OR of 1.19 per year. A turning point in chances of risks and benefits was demonstrated at 70 months, with improved outcomes for patients with revision surgery ≥ 70 months (OR 2.86). For POP patients, no statistically significant predictors for reduction of pain after (partial) removal surgery could be identified. CONCLUSION: A longer duration of at least 70 months between implantation of inguinal mesh and revision surgery seems to give a higher chance on improvement of pain. Caregivers should not avoid surgery based on a longer duration of symptoms when an association between symptoms and the location of the mesh is found.

A narrative review on the non-surgical treatment of chronic postoperative inguinal pain: a challenge for both surgeon and anaesthesiologist.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is one of the most frequent clinical problems after inguinal hernia surgery. Despite more than two decades of research and numerous publications, no evidence exists to allow for chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) specific treatment algorithms. METHODS: This narrative review presents the current knowledge of the non-surgical management of CPIP and makes suggestions for daily practice. RESULTS: There is a paucity for high-level evidence of non-surgical options for CPIP. Different treatment options and algorithms have been published for chronic pain patients in the last decades. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: It is suggested that non-surgical treatment is introduced in the management of all CPIP patients. The overall approach to interventions should be pragmatic, tiered and multi-interventional, starting with least invasive and only moving to more invasive procedures upon lack of effect. Evaluation should be multidisciplinary and should take place in specialized centres. We strongly suggest to follow general guidelines for treatment of persistent pain and to build a database allowing for establishing CPIP specific evidence for optimal analgesic treatments.

Recall bias in pain scores evaluating abdominal wall and groin pain surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine whether levels of pre-operative pain as recalled by a patient in the post-operative phase are possibly overestimated or underestimated compared to prospectively scored pain levels. If so, a subsequent misclassification may induce recall bias that may lead to an erroneous effect outcome. METHODS: Data of seven retrospective cohort studies on surgery for chronic abdominal wall and groin pain using three different pain scores were systematically analyzed. First, it was assessed whether retrospectively acquired pre-operative pain levels, as scored by the patient in the post-operative phase, differed from prospectively obtained pre-operative pain scores. Second, it was determined if errors associated with retrospectively obtained pain scores potentially lead to a misclassification of treatment outcome. Third, a meta-analysis established whether recall misclassifications, if present, affected overall study conclusions. RESULTS: Pain data of 313 patients undergoing remedial surgery were evaluated. The overall prevalence of misclassification due to a recall error was 13.7%. Patients not benefitting from surgery ('failures') judged their pre-operative pain level as more severe than it actually was. In contrast, patients who were pain free after remedial surgery ('successes') underestimated pre-operative pain scores. Recall misclassifications were significantly more present in failures than in successful patients (odds ratio 2.4 [95% CI 1.2-4.8]). CONCLUSION: One in seven patients undergoing remedial groin surgery is misclassified on the basis of retrospectively obtained pre-operative pain scores (success instead of failure, or vice versa). Misclassifications are relatively more present in failures after surgery. Therefore, the effect size of a therapy erroneously depends on its success rate.

Are polypropylene mesh implants associated with systemic autoimmune inflammatory syndromes? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: The surgical implantation of polypropylene (PP) meshes has been linked to the occurrence of systemic autoimmune disorders. We performed a systematic review to determine whether PP implants for inguinal, ventral hernia or pelvic floor surgery are associated with the development of systemic autoimmune syndromes. METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane library, clinicaltrialsregister.eu, clinicaltrails.gov and WHO-ICTR platform. Last search was performed on November 24th 2021. All types of studies reporting systemic inflammatory/autoimmune response in patients having a PP implant for either pelvic floor surgery, ventral or inguinal hernia repair were included. Animal studies, case reports and articles without full text were excluded. We intended to perform a meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This study was registered at Prospero (CRD42020220705). RESULTS: Of 2137 records identified, 4 were eligible. Two retrospective matched cohort studies focused on mesh surgery for vaginal prolapse or inguinal hernia compared to hysterectomy and colonoscopy, respectively. One cohort study compared the incidence of systemic conditions in women having urinary incontinence surgery with and without mesh. These reports had a low risk of bias. A meta-analysis showed no association when comparing systemic disease between mesh and control groups. Calculated risk ratio was 0.9 (95% CI 0.82-0.98). The fourth study was a case series with a high risk of bias, with a sample of 714 patients with systemic disease, 40 of whom had PP mesh implanted. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence to suggest a causal relationship between being implanted with a PP mesh and the occurrence of autoimmune disorders.

Patient-reported outcome measurement compared with professional judgment of cosmetic results after breast-conserving therapy.

Background: In the present study, we set out to compare patient-reported outcomes with professional judgment about cosmesis after breast-conserving therapy (bct) and to evaluate which items (position of the nipple, color, scar, size, shape, and firmness) correlate best with subjective outcome. Methods: Dutch patients treated with bct between 2008 and 2009 were analyzed. Exclusion criteria were prior amputation or bct of the contralateral breast, metastatic disease, local recurrence, or any prior cosmetic breast surgery. Structured questionnaires and standardized six-view photographs were obtained with a minimum of 3 years' follow-up. Cosmetic outcome was judged by the patients and, based on photographs, by 5 different medical professionals using 3 different scoring systems: the Harvard scale, the Sneeuw questionnaire, and a numeric rating scale. Agreement was scored using the intraclass correlation coefficient (icc). The association between items of the Sneeuw questionnaire and a fair-poor Harvard score was estimated using logistic regression analysis. Results: The study included 108 female patients (age: 40-91 years). Based on the Harvard scale, agreement on cosmetic outcome between the professionals was good (icc: 0.78). In contrast, agreement between professionals as a group compared with the patients was found to be fair to moderate (icc range: 0.38-0.50). The items "size" and "shape" were identified as the strongest determinants of cosmetic outcome. Conclusions: Cosmetic outcome was scored differently by patients and professionals. Agreement was greater between the professionals than between the patients and the professionals as a group. In general, size and shape were the most prominent items on which cosmetic outcome was judged by patients and professionals alike.

Laparoscopic mesh removal for otherwise intractable inguinal pain following endoscopic hernia repair is feasible, safe and may be effective in selected patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is preferred over an open technique because of reduced recovery time, favorable cost effectiveness, and less chronic postoperative inguinal pain. Nevertheless, some patients develop a nociceptive inguinal pain syndrome possibly related to the presence of the mesh. This is the first study describing feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of laparoscopic mesh removal in patients with chronic pain after endoscopic hernia repair. METHODS: Pre- and intraoperative data of chronic pain patients scheduled for endoscopic mesh removal were prospectively collected by a standard evaluation form. Long-term efficacy was determined using pain scores, patient satisfaction, and quality of life questionnaire. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine significant differences between pre- and postoperative pain scores. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were studied (11 males, median 52 years). Median operating time was 103 min. Conversion to open surgery was not required. One intraoperatively recognized bladder laceration was laparoscopically closed. Otherwise, no intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred. Eight months postoperatively (median), pain scores had dropped from eight to four (p < 0.01). Satisfaction was good or excellent in ten patients. A recurrent hernia developed in two patients requiring an open mesh repair in one. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic mesh removal is a feasible, safe, and effective option in selected patients with chronic groin pain after endoscopic hernia repair in the hands of an experienced surgeon.

Randomized clinical trial comparing self-gripping mesh with a standard polypropylene mesh for open inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of mesh for open inguinal hernia repair has reduced the rate of recurrence, allowing research to focus on prevention of postoperative pain. In an effort to reduce chronic pain, a semiresorbable, lighter and self-gripping mesh was developed. METHODS: A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted comparing the self-gripping mesh with a standard polypropylene mesh repair. Patients over 18 years of age undergoing open primary hernia repair were included. Pain was measured on a six-point verbal rating scale (VRS) and a 150-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Postoperative pain reduction from baseline pain (ΔVAS), complications and return to work/hobbies were studied. Data were collected at baseline, 3 weeks, 3 months and 1 year after surgery (primary outcome). RESULTS: A total of 363 patients were analysed. Median age was 59 (range 19-88) years. Baseline VRS and VAS scores were similar for the two groups. There was no difference in VRS scores at 1-year follow-up. Duration of surgery was significantly shorter with the self-gripping mesh (mean 40 min versus 49 min for standard mesh repair; P < 0·001). At 3 weeks, ΔVAS in patients receiving the self-gripping mesh was significantly larger (-10·6 versus -5·0 respectively; P = 0·049) and less subjective discomfort was reported (P = 0·016). Complication rates, return to work and recurrence rates were similar, although there were more recurrences in the self-gripping mesh group (5·5 versus 2·2 per cent; P = 0·103). CONCLUSION: A self-gripping mesh for hernia repair may result in less pain in the early postoperative phase but chronic postherniorraphy pain is not affected. Recurrence rates may be a potential disadvantage. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1212 (http://www.trialregister.nl).

The relevance of respiratory viral infections in the exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease­a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing knowledge on the role of viruses in exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), it is less clear which viruses are involved and to what extent they contribute to exacerbations. This review aims to systematically combine and evaluate the available literature of the prevalence of respiratory viruses in patients with AECOPD, detected by PCR. METHODS: An electronic search strategy was performed on PubMed and Embase and reference lists were screened for eligible studies. Cross-sectional, prospective studies and case-control studies were included. The primary outcome measure was the prevalence of respiratory viruses (adenovirus, bocavirus, coronavirus, EBV, hMPV, influenza, parainfluenza, rhino-/enterovirus, RSV) in respiratory secretions of patients during an AECOPD. Secondary outcomes were the odds of the presence of the viruses in different respiratory secretions and the odds of the presence of viruses in upper and lower respiratory tract (URT/LRT) samples. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with 1728 patients were included. Rhino-/enteroviruses (16.39%), RSV (9.90%) and influenza (7.83%) were the most prevalent viruses detected with lower detection rates of coronaviruses (4.08%) and parainfluenza (3.35%). Adenovirus (2.07%), hMPV (2.78%) and bocaviruses (0.56%) appear to be rare causative agents of AECOPD. Definitive conclusions regarding the role of EBV cannot be made. Seven of the eight analyzed viruses had a higher prevalence in LRT samples. Coronaviruses were detected more frequently in the URT. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory viruses are frequently detected in both URT and LRT samples in AECOPD with rhino-/enteroviruses, RSV and influenza viruses the most prevalent viruses. Detection rates vary between the two sites for different viruses.