Drain vs no drain placement after retromuscular ventral hernia repair with mesh: an ACHQC analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is one of the most common procedures in the United States, and drains are used in over 50% of mesh repairs. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of drains on surgical site occurrences (SSO) and infection (SSI) after open and minimally invasive retromuscular VHR with mesh. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the ACHQC was performed to include adult patients who underwent elective VHR with retromuscular mesh placement. Univariate analysis was performed comparing drain and no-drain groups. A logistic regression was performed to identify factors independently associated with increased SSO, SSI, readmission, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: 6945 patients underwent elective VHR with sublay mesh. Most patients had M2 and M3 hernias in both groups (with Drain and no-drain). The median LOS was 4.7 (SD 8.3) in the drain group and 1.6 (SD 8.4) in the no-drain group (p < 0.001). 30-day SSI was higher in the drain group (176; 3.8% vs 25; 1.1%; p < 0.001). Despite lower SSO overall in the drain group (470; 10.0% vs 286; 12.7%; p < 0.001), SSO or SSI requiring intervention (SSOPI) was higher in the drain group (240; 5.1% vs 44; 1.9%; p < 0.001). Logistic regression identified diabetes (OR 1.3, CI 1.1-1.6; p < 0.001) and BMI (OR 1.04, CI 1.03-1.05; p < 0.001) as predictors of SSO, while the use of a drain was protective (OR 0.61; CI 0.5-0.8; p < 0.001). For SSI, logistic regression showed diabetes (OR 1.6, CI 1.2-2.3; p = 0.004) and open approach (OR 3.5, CI 2.1-5.9; p < 0.001) as predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Drain placement during retromuscular VHR with mesh was predictive of decreased postoperative SSO occurrence but associated with increased LOS. Diabetes and open approach, but not drain use, were predictors of SSI.

A comparison between robotic-assisted and open approaches for large ventral hernia repair-a multicenter analysis of 30 days outcomes using the ACHQC database.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last few decades, there has been an increase in the use of a minimally invasive (MIS) approach for complex hernias involving component separation. A robotic platform provides better visualization and mobilization of tissues for component separation. We aim to assess the outcomes of open and robotic-assisted approaches for large VHR utilizing the ACHQC national database. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) was performed to include all adult patients who had primary and incisional midline ventral hernias larger than 10 cm and underwent elective open and robotic hernia repairs with mesh from January 2013 to March 2023. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed comparing Open and Robotic approaches. RESULTS: The ACHQC database identified 5,516 patients with midline hernias larger than 10 cm who underwent VHR. The open group (OG) had 4,978 patients, and the robotic group (RG) had 538. The RG had a higher median BMI (33.3 kg/m2 (IQR 29.8-38.1) vs 32.7 (IQR 28.7-36.6) (p < 0.001). Median hernia width was 15 cm (IQR 12-18) in the OG and 12 cm in the RG (10-14) (p < 0.001). Sublay positioning of the mesh was the most common. The fascial closure was higher in the RG (524; 97% versus 4,708; 95%-p = 0.005). Median Length of Stay (LOS) was 5 days (IQR 4-7) in the OG and 2 days (IQR 1-3) in the RG (p < 0.001). The readmission rate was higher in the OG (n = 374; 7.5% vs n = 16; 3%; p < 0.001). 30-day SSI were higher in the OG (343; 6.9%% vs 14; 2.6%; p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis identified diabetes (OR 1.6; CI 1.1-2.1; p = 0.006) and BMI (OR 1.04, CI 1.02-1.06; p < 0.001) as predictors of SSIs, while the robotic approach was protective (OR 0.35, CI 0.17-0.64; p = 0.002). For SSO, logistic regression showed BMI (OR 1.04, CI 1.03-1.06; p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.8, CI 1.3-2.4; p < 0.001) as predictors Robotic approach was associated with lower readmission rates (OR .04, CI 0.2-0.6; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A robotic approach improves early 30-day outcomes compared to an open technique for large VHR. There was no difference in SSO at 30 days.

Slowly absorbable mesh in sublay ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields.

BACKGROUND: In the past years, there has been increasing evidence that supports the use of permanent mesh in contaminated wounds. Given this increased evidence, the indications to opt for slowly absorbable "biosynthetic" prostheses have been questioned. To address this, we compared the outcomes of slowly absorbable mesh in contaminated cases in a well-matched multicentric cohort. METHODS: The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) database was queried for patients undergoing elective ventral hernia repair in Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-III operations (2013-2022). We compared demographics, hernia characteristics, and postoperative outcomes among types of mesh. We used propensity score matching to adjust for sex, diabetes, body mass index, smoking status, and operative time between mesh groups. Patients within other CDC classes and those with mesh positioned elsewhere than retro-rectus/preperitoneal space were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 760 patients were included in the analysis. Slowly absorbable synthetic mesh (SA) was utilized in only 7% of the cases, while permanent (P) and biologic (B) mesh in 77% and 16%, respectively. After matching, 255 patients were studied. There was no difference in surgical site occurrence (8% SA, 16% P, 10% B, p = 0.27), surgical site infection (20% SA, 17% P, 12% B p = 0.54), surgical site occurrence requiring intervention (18% SA, 13% P, 14% B p = 0.72), readmission (12% SA, 14% P, 12% B, p = 0.90), or reoperation (8% SA, 2% P, 4% B, p = 0.14) at 30 days. In patients with 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in recurrence among groups (20% SA, 26% P, 24% B p = 0.90). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, SA has comparable outcomes to other types of mesh, particularly when an optimal retro-rectus repair is performed.

Hiatal hernia repair with biosynthetic mesh reinforcement: a qualitative systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Reinforcement of crural closure with synthetic resorbable mesh has been proposed to decrease recurrence rates after hiatal hernia repair, but continues to be controversial. This systematic review aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and intermediate-term results of using biosynthetic mesh to augment the hiatus. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed throughout this systematic review. The Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions and Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials tools were used to perform qualitative assessment of all studies included in this review. Recommendations were then summarized for the following pre-defined key items: protocol, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, study design, risk of bias, publication bias, and statistical analysis. RESULTS: The systematic literature search found 520 articles, 101 of which were duplicates and 355 articles were determined to be unrelated to our study and excluded. The full text of the remaining 64 articles was thoroughly assessed. A total of 18 articles (1846 patients) were ultimately included for this review, describing hiatal hernia repair using three different biosynthetic meshes-BIO-A, Phasix ST, and polyglactin mesh. Mean operative time varied from 127 to 223 min. Mean follow up varied from 12 to 54 months. There were no mesh erosions or explants. One mesh-related complication of stenosis requiring reoperation was reported with BIO-A. Studies showed significant improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores, as well as satisfaction with surgery. Recurrence was reported as radiologic or clinical recurrence. Overall, recurrence rate varied from 0.9 to 25%. CONCLUSION: The use of biosynthetic mesh is safe and effective for hiatal hernia repair with low complications rates and high symptom resolution. The reported recurrence rates are highly variable due to significant heterogeneity in defining and evaluating recurrences. Further randomized controlled trials with larger samples and long-term follow-up should be performed to better analyze outcomes and recurrence rates.

Assessing outcomes in laparoscopic vs open surgical management of adhesive small bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel obstruction is typically managed nonoperatively; however, refractory small bowel obstructions or closed loop obstructions necessitate operative intervention. Traditionally, laparotomy has long been the standard operative intervention for lysis of adhesions of small bowel obstructions. But as surgeons become more comfortable with minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopy has become a widely accepted intervention for small bowel obstructions. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopy to open surgery in the operative management of small bowel obstruction. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of operative small bowel obstruction cases at a single academic medical center from June 2016 to December 2019. Data were obtained from billing data and electronic medical record for patients with primary diagnosis of small bowel obstruction. Postoperative outcomes between the laparoscopic and open intervention groups were compared. The primary outcome was time to return of bowel function. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, VTE, and reoperation rate. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of a total of 279 patients with 170 (61%) and 109 (39%) patients in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively. Patients undergoing laparoscopic intervention had overall shorter median return of bowel function (4 vs 6 days, p = 0.001) and median length of stay (8 vs 13 days, p = 0.001). When stratifying for bowel resection, patients in the laparoscopic group had shorter return of bowel function (5.5 vs 7 days, p = 0.06) and shorter overall length of stay (10 vs 16 days, p < 0.002). Patients in the laparoscopic group who did not undergo bowel resection had an overall shorter median return of bowel function (3 vs 5 days, p < 0.0009) and length of stay (7 vs 10 days, p < 0.006). When comparing surgeons who performed greater than 40% cases laparoscopically to those with fewer than 40%, there was no difference in patient characteristics. There was no significant difference in return of bowel function, length of stay, post-operative mortality, or re-admission laparoscopic preferred or open preferred surgeons. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic intervention for the operative management of small bowel obstruction may provide superior clinical outcomes, shorter return of bowel function and length of stay compared to open operation, but patient selection for laparoscopic intervention is based on surgeon preference rather than patient characteristics.

SubCutaneous OnLay endoscopic Approach (SCOLA) mesh repair for small midline ventral hernias with diastasis recti: An initial US experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting for evaluation of umbilical and epigastric hernias are often found to have diastasis recti (DR). As isolated hernia repair in these patients may be associated with higher rates of recurrence, prior international publications have described a prefascial mesh repair in combination with anterior plication of DR. We present our initial United States (US) experience with a SubCutaneous OnLay endoscopic Approach (SCOLA) to address these concurrent pathologies in a single hybrid procedure. METHODS: Between July 2018 and December 2019, a prospective cohort of 16 patients underwent the SCOLA procedure. Subcutaneous dissection was carried out from the suprapubic region superiorly to the xiphoid process and laterally to the linea semilunaris. Hernia contents were reduced and defects were incorporated into anterior DR plication, which was performed with running barbed suture. Onlay mesh was placed to cover the entire dissected space, and subcutaneous drains were placed. Three separate attendings performed cases with one supervising attending for standard technique. RESULTS: Of 16 patients, 14 (87.5%) were female. The mean age was 45.7 (11.9) years; mean BMI was 29.0 (3.6) kg/m2. The mean hernia defect size was 1.9 (0.7) cm. Mean operative time was 146 (46.3) minutes; two (15%) cases were performed robotically. The mean follow-up time was approximately two months (63 days). Three (18.8%) patients developed seroma, one (6.3%) patient developed an infected seroma, and two (12.5%) patients developed hernia recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: SCOLA technique is shown to be a safe and effective approach for patients presenting with small midline ventral hernias and concomitant DR. Our preliminary US data demonstrates higher rates of post-operative complication in patients with higher BMI, which suggests that patient selection and pre-operative counseling is essential to achieve better technical outcomes in our patient population.

Endoscopic onlay repair for ventral hernia and rectus abdominis diastasis repair: Why so many different names for the same procedure? A qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A subcutaneous endoscopic onlay repair for ventral hernia with an anterior plication of diastasis recti (DR) has been published under different names in different countries. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the safety and feasibility of different named techniques with the same surgical concept. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were followed during all stages of this systematic review. The MINORS score system was used to perform qualitative assessment of all studies included in this review. Recommendations were then summarized for the following pre-defined key items: protocol, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, study designs, risk of bias, publication bias, heterogeneity, and statistical analysis. RESULTS: The systematic literature search found 2548 articles, 317 of which were duplicates and excluded from analysis. The titles and abstracts from the remaining 2231 articles were assessed. After careful evaluation, 2125 articles were determined to be unrelated to our study and subsequently excluded. The full text of the remaining 106 articles was thoroughly assessed. Case reports, editorials, letters to the editor, and general reviews were then excluded. A total of 13 articles were ultimately included for this review, describing a similar subcutaneous endoscopic approach for repair of concomitant ventral hernias and rectus diastasis defined under nine different named techniques on 716 patients. The number of patients in those studies varied from 10 to 201. The mean operative time varied from 68.5 to 195 min. The most common complication was seroma, followed by pain requiring intervention, hematoma, and surgical site infection. CONCLUSIONS: There are a few technique variations described in different studies, but with no significant differences in outcomes. We, therefore, propose to unify these procedures under one term, ENDoscopic Onlay Repair (ENDOR). This technique has shown to be effective and safe, with seroma being the most common complication.

Appropriateness of Online Chat-Based Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT) Answers to Common Questions on Inguinal Hernia Repair.

ChatGPT is a conversational AI model developed by OpenAI designed to generate human-like text based on the input it receives. ChatGPT has become increasingly popular, and the general public may use this tool to ask questions about different medical conditions. There is a lack of data showing if ChatGPT is able to provide reliable information on medical conditions to the general public. The aim of our study is to assess the accuracy and appropriateness of ChatGPT answers to questions on inguinal hernia management.

How Appropriate Are Recommendations of Online Chat-Based Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT) to Common Questions on Ventral Hernia Repair?

ChatGPT is a conversational AI model developed by OpenAI to generate human-like text based on the input it receives. ChatGPT has become increasingly popular, and the general public may use this tool to ask questions about different medical conditions. There is a lack of data to demonstrate ChatGPT is able to provide reliable information on medical conditions. The aim of our study is to assess the accuracy and appropriateness of ChatGPT answers to questions on ventral hernia management.

The impact of smoking on ventral and inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Individual studies indicate poorer outcomes for smokers after hernia repair. Previous meta-analyses have examined the impact of smoking on specific outcomes such as recurrence and surgical site infection, but there has been a lack of comprehensive consensus or systematic review on this subject. Addressing this gap, our study undertakes a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of smoking on the outcomes of ventral hernia repair (VHR) and inguinal hernia repair. SOURCE: A thorough search of Cochrane Central, Scopus, SciELO, and PubMed/MEDLINE, focusing on studies that examined the effect of smoking on inguinal and VHR outcomes was conducted. Key outcomes evaluated included recurrence, reoperation, surgical site occurrences (SSO), surgical site infection (SSI), and seroma. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Out of 3296 screened studies, 42 met the inclusion criteria. These comprised 25 studies (69,295 patients) on VHR and 17 studies (204,337 patients) on inguinal hernia repair. The analysis revealed that smokers had significantly higher rates of recurrence (10.4% vs. 9.1%; RR 1.48; 95% CI [1.15; 1.90]; P < 0.01), SSO (13.6% vs. 12.7%; RR 1.44; 95% CI [1.12; 1.86]; P < 0.01) and SSI (6.6% vs. 4.2%; RR 1.64; 95% CI [1.38; 1.94]; P < 0.01) following VHR. Additionally, smokers undergoing inguinal hernia repair showed higher recurrence (9% vs. 8.7%; RR 1.91; 95% CI [1.21; 3.01]; P < 0.01), SSI (0.6% vs. 0.3%; RR 1.6; 95% CI [1.21; 2.0]; P < 0.001), and chronic pain (9.9% vs. 10%; RR 1.24; 95% CI [1.06; 1.45]; P < 0.01) rates. No significant differences were observed in seroma (RR 2.63; 95% CI [0.88; 7.91]; P = 0.084) and reoperation rates (RR 1.48; 95% CI [0.77; 2.85]; P = 0.236) for VHR, and in reoperation rates (RR 0.99; 95% CI [0.51; 1.91]; P = 0.978) for inguinal hernias between smokers and non-smokers. Analysis using funnel plots and Egger's test showed the absence of publication bias in the study outcomes. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive meta-analysis found statistically significant increases in recurrence rates, and immediate postoperative complications, such as SSO and SSI following inguinal and VHR. Also, our subgroup analysis suggests that the MIS approach seems to be protective of adverse outcomes in the smokers group. However, our findings suggest that these findings are not of clinical relevance, so our data do not support the necessity of smoking cessation before hernia surgery. More studies are needed to elucidate the specific consequences of smoking in both inguinal and ventral hernia repair. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: ID CRD42024517640.

Transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) versus minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique is an open approach to groin hernia repair with posteriorly positioned mesh supposed to reduce recurrence rates. However, transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) techniques have similar mesh positioning with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing TIPP and MIS for groin hernia repair. SOURCE: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing TIPP and MIS techniques for groin hernia repair. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, chronic pain, surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, and hematoma. We performed a subgroup analysis of TAPP and TEP techniques separately. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 81 studies were screened and 19 were thoroughly reviewed. Six studies were included, of which two compared TIPP with TEP technique, two compared TIPP with TAPP, and two compared TIPP with both TEP and TAPP techniques. We found lower recurrence rates for the TEP technique compared to TIPP (0.38% versus 1.19%; RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.01 to 7.11; P = 0.04). Also, we found lower seroma rates for TIPP group on the overall analysis (RR 0.21; P = 0.002). We did not find statistically significant differences regarding overall recurrence (RR 1.6; P = 0.19), chronic pain (RR 1.53; P = 0.2), SSI (RR 2.51; P = 0.47), and hematoma (RR 1.29; P = 0.76) between MIS and TIPP. No statistically significant differences were found in the subgroup analysis of TAPP technique for all the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found no differences between TIPP and MIS approaches in the overall analysis of recurrence, SSI, and chronic pain rates. Further research is needed to analyze individual techniques and draw a more precise conclusion on this subject. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: ID CRD42024530107, April 8, 2024.

Mesh versus suture for elective primary umbilical hernia open repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Recent guidelines indicate the use of mesh in UHR for defects > 1 cm, as it reduces recurrence, with 10% recurrence rate compared to up to 54.5% with primary closure. However, Nguyen et al. shows that primary closure is still widely performed in UHR, especially for small defects (1-2 cm), for which there is no published data to determine the optimal approach. In addition, previous meta-analysis by Madsen et al. comparing mesh repair with primary closure in UHR didn't exclude emergency conditions and recurrent hernias; also, didn't report subgroup analysis on hernia defect size. Thus, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the mesh repairs vs. primary closure of the defect in an open elective primary UHR. METHODS: We searched for studies comparing mesh with suture in open UHR in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Scielo, and Lilacs from inception until October 2023. Studies with patients ≤ 18 years old, with recurrent or emergency conditions were excluded. Outcomes were recurrence, seroma, hematoma, wound infection, and hospital length of stay. Subgroup analysis was performed for: (1) RCTs only, and (2) hernia defects smaller than 2 cm. We used RevMan 5.4. for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics, and random effect was used if I² > 25%. RESULTS: 2895 studies were screened and 56 were reviewed. 12 studies, including 4 RCTs, 1 prospective cohort, and 7 retrospective cohorts were included, comprising 2926 patients in total (47.6% in mesh group and 52.4% in the suture group). Mesh repair showed lower rates of recurrence in the overall analysis (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; P = 0.003; I2 = 24%) and for hernia defects smaller than 2 cm (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%). Suture repair showed lower rates of seroma (RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.32; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%) and wound infection (RR 1.65; 95%CI 1.12 to 2.43; P = 0.01; I2 = 15%) in the overall analysis, with no differences after performing subgroup analysis of RCTs. No differences were seen regarding hematoma and hospital length of stay. CONCLUSION: The use of mesh during UHR is associated with significantly lower incidence of recurrence in a long-term follow-up compared to the suture repair, reinforcing the previous indications of the guidelines. Additionally, despite the overall analysis showing higher risk of seroma and wound infection for the mesh repair, no differences were seen after subgroup analysis of RCTs. STUDY REGISTRATION: A review protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024476854).

Elective complex ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields: A propensity score-matched analysis of long-term quality of life and outcomes between different prostheses.

BACKGROUND: Randomized studies have endorsed nonabsorbable prosthetics for contaminated ventral hernia surgery, yet the broader applicability and impact on patient-reported outcomes are still questioned. Here, we evaluated the long-term outcomes of elective contaminated ventral hernia repairs (based on Centers of Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] wound classification) using real-world data from a multicenter US cohort, focusing on quality of life and postoperative pain. METHODS: The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database was queried for patients undergoing elective contaminated (CDC class II-IV) ventral hernia repair (2013-2023). After propensity matching, we compared long-term differences in patient-reported quality of life and pain scores (by HerQLes and PROMIS questionnaires) among those who underwent repair with nonabsorbable, absorbable synthetic, and biologic mesh. RESULTS: A total of 1,073 patients were included, of whom 920 (86%), 56 (5%), and 97 (9%) underwent repair with nonabsorbable, absorbable synthetic, and biologic mesh, respectively. Among them, the median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53-70), and 523 (49%) were male. The median length and width of the defect were 20 cm (IQR 12-25) and 13 cm (IQR 8-16), respectively. A transversus abdominis release was performed in 716 patients (67% of all cases). In most cases, the mesh was positioned in the retro-rectus (85%) and/or the preperitoneal space (45%). Before and after propensity matching (n = 185), the change from baseline in HerQLes and PROMIS scores at 6 months and at 1, 3, 5, and 6 years was comparable between different types of mesh. Lastly, there were no differences in readmission, surgical site infection, or surgical site occurrence at 30 days. Recurrence at 1 year was also comparable among groups. CONCLUSION: In the long term, there were no differences in quality of life or pain scores with nonabsorbable, absorbable synthetic, or biologic mesh for elective ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields.

Current trends and outcomes for unilateral groin hernia repairs in the United States using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database: A multicenter propensity score matching analysis of 30-day and 1-year outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Different unilateral groin hernia repair approaches have been developed in the last 2 decades. The most commonly done approaches are open inguinal hernia repair by the Lichenstein technique, laparoscopic approach by either total extraperitoneal or transabdominal preperitoneal, and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal approach. Hence, this study aimed to compare early and late postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent unilateral robotic transabdominal preperitoneal, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, and laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, and open groin hernia repair using a United States national hernia database, the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative Database. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database was retrospectively reviewed, including all adult patients who underwent elective unilateral groin hernia repair from 2015 to 2022, with a 1:1 propensity score match analysis conducted for balanced groups. The univariate analysis compared the groups across the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative timeframes. RESULTS: The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database identified 14,320 patients who underwent elective unilateral groin hernia repair and had documented 30 days of follow-up. Propensity score matching stratified 1,598 patients to each group (total of 6,392). The median age was 64 years (interquartile range 53-74) for open groin hernia repair, whereas 60 (interquartile range 47-69) for laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, 62 (interquartile range 48-70) for laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, and 60 (interquartile range 47-70) for robotic transabdominal preperitoneal were noted. Open groin hernia repair had more American Society of Anesthesiologists score 4 (52, 3%) patients (P < .001). A painful bulge was the most common indication (>85%). Operating room time >2 hours was more significant in the robotic transabdominal preperitoneal group (123, 8%; P < .001). Seroma rate was higher in the laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (134, 8%; P < .001). A 1-year analysis had 1,103 patients. Hematoma, surgical site infection, readmission, reoperation, and hernia recurrence at 30 days or 1 year did not differ, with an overall recurrence rate of 6% (n = 67) at 1 year (P = .33). In patients with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, the robotic approach had lower rates of surgical site occurrence (n = 12, 4%; P = .002) and seroma (n = 5, 2%; P < .001) compared with the other groups. When evaluating recurrence 1 year after surgery, the robotic transabdominal preperitoneal group had 10% versus 18% open groin hernia repair, 11% laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, and 18% laparoscopic total extraperitoneal, but it was not statistically significant (P = .53). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in readmission, reoperation, and surgical site infection among the surgical techniques at 30 days. However, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal was associated with more seromas. Hernia recurrence at 1 year was similar across groups; the robotic approach had the lowest recurrence rate among all 3 repairs but did not reach statistical significance. The robotic approach performed better in patients with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 for surgical site occurrence and seroma than in other surgical techniques.

Risk factors for incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of incisional hernia (IH) after an open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair can reach up to 35%, contributing to long-term morbidity. Individual studies have been limited in identifying modifiable risk factors for IH after an open AAA repair. This meta-analysis aims to review all the risk factors for IH after an open AAA repair. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases for original studies. Risk factors assessed were age, sex, comorbidities, surgical incision, blood loss, and surgical site infection (SSI). Data analysis was done using RStudio 4.1.2. We computed Relative Risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and Mean differences (MD) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for continuous outcomes. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria among 1,795 screened articles. Among those ten studies, there were a total of 1,806 patients of which 341 patients developed IH. Older age (Mean 69.6-70.7 years, MD 1.39 years, CI [1.12-1.66], P < 0.01), midline vertical incision (RR 1.55, CI [1.06-2.25], P = 0.02) and increased intraoperative blood loss (MD 429.8 ml, CI [234.8- 624.8], P < 0.01) were associated with an increased incidence of IH. Surgical site infection (SSI) was noted as a risk factor for IH after open AAA repair (RR 2.36, CI [1.31-4.24], P = 0.004). No statistically significant association was found between the incidence of IH and sex (RR 1.0, CI [0.8-1.14], P = 0.98), smoking (RR 1.01, CI [0.93-1.09], P = 0.88), diabetes (RR 1.38, CI [0.85-2.25], P = 0.19), and chronic kidney disease (RR 1.55, CI [0.47-5.09], P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that age, midline vertical incision, intraoperative blood loss, and SSI are risk factors for IH after open AAA repair.

The Impact of a Specialized Hernia Center and Standardized Practices on Surgical Outcomes in Hernia Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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

Twitter and surgery: how social media can impact surgical education.

INTRODUCTION: Social media is now a ubiquitous form of communication. It has allowed individuals to connect and share ideas across the country and across the globe. Twitter allows user to share thoughts in 280-character "tweets," while also connecting these messages to community posts with hashtags. While the surgical community utilizes many social media platforms; the use of Twitter has been particularly unique. The aim of this review was to focus on several areas of Twitter utilization in surgery including: surgical education, residency training, and utilization by surgical societies. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The following databases were searched for studies meeting our inclusion criteria: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochraine library, ScieLO, LILACS. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Selected papers discussed the use of Twitter for surgical education, social media use by residency programs, and social media use by surgical societies. CONCLUSIONS: Twitter has allowed for growth of the surgical community both locally and nationally. It allows for promotion and connectivity for surgical departments and individual surgeons. Furthermore, it is an important communication tool for surgical societies to reach members and disseminate guidelines and recommendations.

Does the Weight Matter? Short-Term Outcomes of Lightweight Versus Heavyweight Three-Dimensional Anatomical Mesh in Minimally Invasive Inguinal Hernia Repair.

Background: The type of mesh used in inguinal hernia repairs remains controversial. There are limited data looking at specific mesh-related complications. The objective of this study is to assess postoperative 90-day outcomes in lightweight (LW) and heavyweight (HW) anatomical mesh in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs. Methods: A retrospective single-center database was queried for all adult minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs with anatomical mesh from July 2016 to March 2021. Demographics and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed. Results: Six hundred forty-seven minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs were performed with 423 (65.3%) using HW and 224 (24.7%) using LW mesh. There was no difference in mean body mass index between the groups (26.9 ± 4.2 kg/m2 in the LW group and 27.1 ± 4.2 kg/m2 in the HW group; P = .69). There was no difference in type of mesh fixation used in either group, with tacker being the most common. There was no difference in postoperative emergency department (ED) visit (P = .625), readmission rates (P = .562), or postoperative complications between the two groups. Fifty patients presented with seroma within 90 days. There were five recurrences in each group and only one surgical site infection in the LW within 90 days. Multivariate logistic regression was performed, and predictors of seroma formation included age (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; confidence interval [CI] 1-1.04; P = .02) and hypertension (HTN) (OR 1.8; CI 1.03-3.4; P = .039). HW mesh was not associated with seroma formation (OR 1.04; CI 0.5-1.9; P = .895). Similarly, HW mesh was not associated with surgical site occurrences (SSO) (OR 1.04; CI 0.5-1.8; P = .872). HTN was associated with SSO (OR 1.74; CI 1-3.05; P = .048). Conclusion: Our study did not favor the use of LW or HW mesh when comparing postoperative complications or clinical outcomes. HW mesh was not associated with either seroma formation or SSO.

Permanent vs Absorbable Mesh for Ventral Hernia Repair in Contaminated Fields: Multicenter Propensity-Matched Analysis of 1-Year Outcomes Using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative Database.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, the use of absorbable mesh in contaminated fields aimed to reduce postoperative morbidity at the expense of increased hernia recurrence. This dogma has recently been challenged in randomized trials that demonstrate the advantages of permanent mesh in this setting. Although these studies are of high quality, their reproducibility across institutions is limited. We sought to compare the outcomes between permanent and absorbable mesh in a multicentric cohort from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who underwent elective ventral hernia repair in class II and III surgeries from January 2013 to December 2021 were identified within the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative. Outcomes were compared among permanent (P), absorbable synthetic (AS), and biologic (B) mesh at 30 days and 1 year using a propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2,484 patients were included: 73.4% P, 11.2% AS, and 15.4% B. Of these, 64% were clean-contaminated and 36% contaminated interventions. After propensity score-matched analysis, there was no significant difference between groups regarding surgical site occurrence (P 16%, AS 15%, B 21%, p = 0.13), surgical site infection (P 12%, AS 14%, B 12%, p = 0.64), and surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention at 30 days (P 12%, AS 15%, B 17%, p = 0.1). At 1 year, the recurrence rate was significantly lower among the permanent group (P 23%, AS 40%, B 32%, p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicentric cohort, permanent mesh has equivalent 30-day outcomes and lower rates of hernia recurrence at 1 year after hernia repair in contaminated fields.