Multicenter review of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: is there a role for robotics?

BACKGROUND: The utilization of robotic platforms for general surgery procedures such as hernia repair is growing rapidly in the United States. A limited amount of data are available evaluating operative outcomes in comparison to standard laparoscopic surgery. We completed a retrospective review comparing robotic and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair to provide safety and outcomes data to help design a future prospective trial design. METHODS: A retrospective review of 215 patients undergoing ventral hernia repair (142 robotic and 73 laparoscopic) was completed at two large academic centers. Primary outcome measure evaluated was recurrence. Secondary outcomes included incidence of primary fascial closure, and surgical site occurrences. RESULTS: Propensity for treatment match comparison demonstrated that robotic repair was associated with a decreased incidence of recurrence (2.1 versus 4.2%, p < 0.001) and surgical site occurrence (4.2 versus 18.8%, p < 0.001). This may be because robotic repair was associated with increased incidence of primary fascial closure (77.1 versus 66.7%, p < 0.01). Analysis of baseline patient populations showed that robotic repairs were completed on patients with lower body mass index (28.1 ± 3.6 versus 34.2 ± 6.4, p < 0.001) and fewer comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective data show that robotic repair was associated with decreased recurrence and surgical site occurrence. However, the differences noted in the patient populations limit the interpretability of these results. As adoption of robotic ventral hernia repair increases, prospective trials need to be designed in order to investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of this evolving technique.

A Prospective Assessment of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Initial Non-Operative Management of Ventral Hernias.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the clinical or patient-reported outcomes with non-operative management of ventral hernias. The aim of this prospective study is to determine the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing initial non-operative treatment of their ventral hernia. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective observational study of patients undergoing non-operative management of ventral hernias. Primary outcome was rate of surgical repair of the ventral hernias. Secondary outcomes included rate of emergency repair, elective repair, and emergency room visits. In addition, validated measurement tools for patient satisfaction and cosmetic satisfaction with their abdomen, abdominal pain, and patient function (modified Activities Assessment Scale, AAS) were utilized. RESULTS: Of 128 patients who underwent non-operative management of a ventral hernia, 99(77.3%) patients were followed for a median (interquartile range) of 12.2(10.4-13.5) months. Twenty (20.2%) patients had at least 1 emergency room visit associated with their hernia. One-quarter (n = 2323.2%) underwent ventral hernia repair following enrollment. Twenty (20.2%) underwent elective repair, and 3 (3.0%) underwent emergent repair. Based on the modified AAS survey, patients who were managed non-operatively experienced no change in patient centered outcomes, while patients converted to operative management had improved scores. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: While the short-term risk of emergency surgery with non-operative management of ventral hernias is moderate, the chance of an emergency room visit and surgery is high. Patients who undergo non-operative management of their ventral hernias have no change in patient-reported outcomes at one year, while those converted to operative management experience improvement.

Is Nonoperative Management Warranted in Ventral Hernia Patients With Comorbidities?: A Case-matched, Prospective, Patient-centered Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine patient-centered outcomes of nonoperative treatment of a ventral hernia. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Nonoperative management of ventral hernias (VHs) is often recommended for patients at increased risk of complications; however, the impact of this management strategy on outcome and quality of life (QoL) is unknown. We hypothesize that QoL and function are better among patients with VHs managed operatively. METHODS: Patients with a VH from a single-center hernia clinic were prospectively enrolled between June 2014 and June 2015. Nonoperative management was recommended if smoking, obesity, or poorly controlled diabetes was present. Primary outcomes were patient-centered outcomes, including QoL and function, which were measured using a validated, hernia-specific survey (modified Activities Assessment Scale) before surgeon' consultation and at 6 months. Other outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI) and recurrence. Risk-adjusted outcomes between nonoperative and operative groups were compared using: paired t test on a propensity score-matched subset and multivariable analysis on the overall cohort. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients (nonoperative = 97, operative = 55) were enrolled. In the propensity-matched cohort (n = 90), both groups had similar baseline QoL and function scores, but only repaired patients had improved scores on 6-month follow-up. In the overall cohort, nonoperative management was strongly associated with lower function scores (log odds ratio = -26.5; 95% confidence interval = -35.0 to -18.0). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective study comparing management strategies in VH patients with comorbidities. Elective repair improves hernia-related QoL and function in low- to moderate-risk patients and should be considered in appropriately selected patients.

Mesh Location in Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

There is no consensus on the ideal location for mesh placement in open ventral hernia repair (OVHR). We aim to identify the mesh location associated with the lowest rate of recurrence following OVHR using a systematic review and meta-analysis. A search was performed for studies comparing at least two of four locations for mesh placement during OVHR (onlay, inlay, sublay, and underlay). Outcomes assessed were hernia recurrence and surgical site infection (SSI). Pairwise meta-analysis was performed to compare all direct treatment of mesh locations. A multiple treatment meta-analysis was performed to compare all mesh locations in the Bayesian framework. Sensitivity analyses were planned for the following: studies with a low risk of bias, incisional hernias, by hernia size, and by mesh type (synthetic or biologic). Twenty-one studies were identified (n = 5,891). Sublay placement of mesh was associated with the lowest risk for recurrence [OR 0.218 (95% CI 0.06-0.47)] and was the best of the four treatment modalities assessed [Prob (best) = 94.2%]. Sublay was also associated with the lowest risk for SSI [OR 0.449 (95% CI 0.12-1.16)] and was the best of the 4 treatment modalities assessed [Prob (best) = 77.3%]. When only assessing studies at low risk of bias, of incisional hernias, and using synthetic mesh, the probability that sublay had the lowest rate of recurrence and SSI was high. Sublay mesh location has lower complication rates than other mesh locations. While additional randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings, this network meta-analysis suggests the probability of sublay being the best location for mesh placement is high.

How Long Is Long Enough to Identify a Surgical Site Infection?

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control requires 90 days after surgery using an implant to diagnose or show the absence of a surgical site infection (SSI). However, many databases only track outcomes up to 30 days. The cost and effort to increase follow-up to 90 days after surgery is high and the benefit is unclear. We hypothesize that the majority of SSIs after ventral hernia repair occur within 30 days of surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent ventral hernia repair (with or without mesh) from 2010-2015 at a single institution were evaluated for evidence of SSI. The duration between surgery and the diagnosis of a post-operative SSI was assessed. Baseline and operative characteristics were compared between patients with an early SSI (within 30 days of surgery) and those with a late SSI (more than 30 days after surgery). RESULTS: Among 1,635 patients who underwent ventral hernia repair, 117 (7.2%) developed an SSI. The median (range) of days between surgery and SSI was 15 days (range, 2-763). There were 20 (17.1%) late SSIs diagnosed; of these, 17 were diagnosed between 31-90 d and three were diagnosed later than 90 days. Patients with a late SSI were more likely to have had a prior ventral hernia repair and have had biologic mesh (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the majority of SSIs after ventral hernia repair occurred within the first 30 days, a substantial number of late SSIs occurred. It is worthwhile to follow patients for at least 90 days post-operative in order to capture a more accurate picture of the true rate of SSI.

Ventral Hernia Repair: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: From the patient's perspective, a ventral hernia (VH) can cause pain, adversely affect function, increase size, cosmetically distort the abdomen, and incarcerate/strangulate abdominal contents. The only known "cure" for a VH is surgical repair. The aim of this study was to review systematically the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the surgical care of VH. METHOD: A search of the Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed to obtain reports of RCTs on the use of mesh reinforcement in abdominal wall hernia repair. The outcomes assessed were hernia recurrence and surgical site infection (SSI). The overall quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). When feasible, based on assessment of heterogeneity, data were pooled and analyzed in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 10,349 titles screened, 25 articles (23 studies) met the search criteria. Evidence indicates that mesh reinforcement in clean cases can decrease hernia recurrence (number needed to treat = 7.9) but increase risk of SSI (number needed to harm = 27.8). Placing mesh in the sublay position (as opposed to the onlay or underlay position) may decrease the risk of hernia recurrence and SSI. CONCLUSIONS: Mesh reinforcement is recommended for all VH repairs in a clean case (high grade of evidence). Sublay mesh location may result in fewer recurrences and SSIs than onlay or inlay placement, but further study is needed to confirm this hypothesis (moderate grade of evidence).

Computed tomography findings associated with the risk for emergency ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Conventional wisdom teaches that small hernia defects are more likely to incarcerate. We aim to identify radiographic features of ventral hernias associated with increased risk of bowel incarceration. METHODS: We assessed all patients who underwent emergent ventral hernia repair for bowel complications from 2009 to 2015. Cases were matched 1:3 with elective controls. Computed tomography scans were reviewed to determine hernia characteristics. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify variables associated with emergent surgery. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 88 patients and 264 controls. On univariate analysis, older age, higher ASA score, elevated BMI, ascites, larger hernias, small angle, and taller hernias were associated with emergent surgery. On multivariable analysis, morbid obesity, ascites, smaller angle, and taller hernias were independently associated with emergent surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The teaching that large defects do not incarcerate is inaccurate; bowel compromise occurs with ventral hernias of all sizes. Instead, taller height and smaller angle are associated with the need for emergent repair. Early elective repair should be considered for patients with hernia features concerning for increased risk of bowel compromise.

Component Separation vs. Bridged Repair for Large Ventral Hernias: A Multi-Institutional Risk-Adjusted Comparison, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Repair of large ventral hernia defects is associated with high rates of surgical site occurrences (SSO), including surgical site infection (SSI), site dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, and site necrosis. Two common operative strategies exist: Component separation (CS) with primary fascial closure and mesh reinforcement (PFC-CS) and bridged repair (mesh spanning the hernia defect). We hypothesized that: (1) ventral hernia repair (VHR) of large defects with bridged repair is associated with more SSOs than is PFC, and (2) anterior CS is associated with more SSOs than is endoscopic, perforator-sparing, or posterior CS. METHODS: Part I of this study was a review of a multi-center database of patients who underwent VHR of a defect ≥8 cm from 2010-2011 with at least one month of follow-up. The primary outcome was SSO. The secondary outcome was recurrence. Part II of this study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing bridged repair with PFC and studies comparing different kinds of CS. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients were followed for a median of 16 months (range 1-50 months), of whom 84 underwent PFC-CS and 24 had bridged repairs. Unadjusted results demonstrated no differences between the groups in SSO or recurrence; however, the study was underpowered for this purpose. On meta-analysis, PFC was associated with a lower risk of SSO (odds ratio [OR] = 0.569; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34-0.94) and recurrence (OR = 0.138; 95% CI = 0.08-0.23) compared with bridged repair. On multiple-treatments meta-analysis, both endoscopic and perforator-sparing CS were most likely to be the treatments with the lowest risk of SSO and recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Bridged repair was associated with more SSOs than was PFC, and PFC should be used whenever feasible. Endoscopic and perforator-sparing CS were associated with the fewest complications; however, these conclusions are limited by heterogeneity between studies and poor methodological quality. These results should be used to guide future trials, which should compare the risks and benefits of each CS method to determine in which setting each technique will give the best results.