Elective Recurrent Inguinal Hernia Repair: Value of an Abdominal Wall Surgery Unit.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of an abdominal wall surgery unit on postoperative complications (within 90 days postoperatively), hernia recurrence and chronic postoperative inguinal pain after elective recurrent inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients who underwent elective recurrent inguinal hernia repair between January 2010 and October 2021. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the group of patients operated on in the abdominal wall surgery unit and the group of patients operated on by other units not specialized in abdominal wall surgery. A logistic regression model was performed for hernia recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 250 patients underwent elective surgery for recurrent inguinal hernia during the study period. The patients in the abdominal wall surgery group were younger (P ≤ 0.001) and had fewer comorbidities (P ≤ 0.001). There were no differences between the groups in terms of complications. The patients in the abdominal wall surgery group presented fewer recurrences (15% vs. 3%; P = 0.001). Surgery performed by the abdominal wall surgery unit was related to fewer recurrences in the multivariate analysis (HR = 0.123; 95% CI = 0.21-0.725; P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Specialization in abdominal wall surgery seems to have a positive impact in terms of recurrence in recurrent inguinal hernia repair. The influence of comorbidities or type of surgery (i.e., outpatient surgery) require further study.

Open vs. robot-assisted preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Are they truly clinically different?

INTRODUCTION: Inguinal hernia repair lacks a standard repair technique, with laparo-endoscopic and open preperitoneal methods showing similar outcomes. Despite higher costs, the popularity of robotic surgery is on the rise, driven by technological advantages. Controversies persist in comparing open repair techniques with the robotic approach, given contradictory results. The objective of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes, including complications, chronic pain, and recurrence, between open and robotic-assisted preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study encompassed patients undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair in a specialized unit, employing both open preperitoneal and robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches from September 2018 to May 2023. Comparative analysis of short- and long-term outcomes between these techniques was conducted. Additionally, multivariate logistic regression was employed to explore predictors of postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients met the inclusion criteria. 198 (64%) patients underwent surgery using an open preperitoneal approach and 110 (36%) using robot-assisted laparoscopy. Patients in the robot-assisted group were younger (P = 0.006) and had fewer comorbidities (P < 0.001). There were no differences between the groups in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.133), chronic pain (P = 0.463) or recurrence (P = 0.192). Multivariate analysis identified ASA ≥ III (OR, 1.763; 95%CI, 1.068-3.994; P = 0.027) and inguinoscrotal hernias (OR, 2.371, 95%CI, 1.407-3.944; P = 0.001) as risk factors of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Both open preperitoneal and robotic-assisted laparoscopic approaches show similar outcomes for complications, chronic pain, and recurrence when performed by experienced surgeons. The open preperitoneal approach, with its quicker operative time, may be advantageous for high-comorbidity cases. Treatment choice should consider patient factors, surgeon experience, and healthcare resources.

Lateral incisional hernia. EVEREG registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to analyze the data collected on lateral incisional hernias (LIH) in the National Incisional Hernia Registry (EVEREG) and assess current practices and outcomes in LIH repair. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using LIH data recorded over 10 years (2012-2022). Comorbidities, hernia characteristics, short-term complications, and recurrences were studied, along with their association with the type of approach used, either open or laparoscopic, in elective surgery. RESULTS: 1742 LIH cases were studied. According to the EHS classification, these included L1 409 (23.5%), L2 388 (22.3%), L3 565 (32.4%), L4 150 (8.6%) and combined 230 (13.2%). An open approach was performed in 1528 (87.7%) cases and laparoscopic in 214 (12.3%). The median age was 66 ± 12.45 years, with a majority of males, 934 (53.6%). The median body mass index was 29 ± 5.18 kg/m2. The most observed comorbidity was arterial hypertension (957 patients, 55%). A specialist was present in 638 interventions (56%). The 24-month follow-up was 17.9%, and recurrence in those cases was 27.2%, with a higher incidence when there was no specialist present during the intervention, onlay mesh position, and larger defect size. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for LIH is common, although laparoscopic approach remains infrequent. Furthermore, it is associated with a high percentage of recurrences that increases when there is no specialist in abdominal wall surgery present.

Parastomal hernia prevention with permanent mesh in end colostomy: failure with late follow-up of cohorts in three randomized trials.

PURPOSE: Short-term results have been reported regarding parastomal hernia (PH) prevention with a permanent mesh. Long-term results are scarce. The objective was to assess the long-term PH occurrence after a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh. METHODS: Long-term data of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected. The primary outcome was the detection of PH based exclusively on a radiological diagnosis by computed tomography (CT) performed during the long-term follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for the comparison of time to diagnosis of PH according to the presence of mesh vs. no-mesh and the technique of mesh insertion: open retromuscular, laparoscopic keyhole, and laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker. RESULTS: We studied 121 patients (87 men, median age 70 years), 82 (67.8%) of which developed a PH. The median overall length of follow-up was 48.5 months [interquartile range (IQR) 14.4-104.9], with a median time until PH diagnosis of 17.7 months (IQR 9.3-49.0). The survival analysis did not show significant differences in the time to development of a PH according to the presence or absence of a prophylactic mesh neither in the overall study population (log-rank, P = 0.094) nor in the groups of each technique of mesh insertion, although according to the surgical technique, a higher reduction in the appearance of PH for the open retromuscular technique was found (log-rank, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the long-term follow-up placement of a non-absorbable synthetic prophylactic mesh in the context of an elective end colostomy does not seem effective for preventing PH.

Ventral hernia repair in high-risk patients and contaminated fields using a single mesh: proportional meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The use of mesh is a common practice in ventral hernia repair (VHR). Lack of consensus on which prosthetic material works better in different settings remains. This meta-analysis aims to summarize the available evidence on hernia recurrence and complications after repair with synthetic, biologic, or biosynthetic/bioabsorbable meshes in hernias grade 2-3 of the Ventral Hernia Working Group modified classification. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in January 2021 using Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and MEDLINE (via PubMed) databases. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and observational studies with adult patients undergoing VHR with either synthetic, biologic, or biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh were included. Outcomes were hernia recurrence, Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO), Surgical Site Infection (SSI), 30 days re-intervention, and infected mesh removal. Random-effects meta-analyses of pooled proportions were performed. Quality of the studies was assessed, and heterogeneity was explored through sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: 25 articles were eligible for inclusion. Mean age ranged from 47 to 64 years and participants' follow-up ranged from 1 to 36 months. Biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh reported a 9% (95% CI 2-19%) rate of hernia recurrence, lower than synthetic and biologic meshes. Biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh repair also showed a lower incidence of SSI, with a 14% (95% CI 6-24%) rate, and there was no evidence of infected mesh removal. Rates of seroma were similar for the different materials. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis did not show meaningful differences among materials. However, the best proportions towards lower recurrence and complication rates after grade 2-3 VHR were after using biosynthetic/slowly absorbable mesh reinforcement. These results should be taken with caution, as head-to-head comparative studies between biosynthetic and synthetic/biologic meshes are lacking. Although, biosynthetic/bioabsorbable materials could be considered an alternative to synthetic and biologic mesh reinforcement in these settings.

Prioritization criteria of patients on scheduled waiting lists for abdominal wall hernia surgery: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Long delays in waiting lists have a negative impact on the principles of equity and providing timely access to care. This study aimed to assess waiting lists for abdominal wall hernia repair (incisional ventral vs. inguinal hernia) to define explicit prioritization criteria. METHODS: A cross-sectional single-center study was designed. Patients in the waiting list for incisional/ventral hernia (n = 42) and inguinal hernia (n = 50) repair were interviewed by phone and completed health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires (EQ-5D, COMI-hernia, HerQLes) as a measure of severity. Priority was measured as hernia complexity, patient frailty using the modified frailty index (mFI-11), and the consumption of analgesics for hernia. RESULTS: The mean (SD) time on the waiting list was 5.5 (3.2) months (range 1-14). Complex hernia was present in 34.8% of the patients. HRQoL was moderately poor in patients with incisional/ventral hernia (mean HerQL score 66.1), whereas it was moderately good in patients with inguinal hernia (mean COMI-hernia score 3.40). The use of analgesics was higher in patients with incisional/ventral hernia as compared with those with inguinal hernia (1.48 [0.54] vs. 1.31 [0.51], P = 0.021). Worst values of mFI were associated with inguinal hernia as compared with incisional/ventral hernia (0.21 [0.14] vs. 0.12 [0.11]; P = 0.010). CONCLUSION: Explicit criteria for prioritization in the waiting lists may be the consumption of analgesics for patients with incisional/ventral hernia and frailty for patients with inguinal hernia. A reasonable approach seems to establish separate waiting lists for incisional/ventral hernia and inguinal hernia repair.