Laparoscopic versus hybrid approach for treatment of incisional ventral hernia: a prospective randomised multicentre study, 1-year results.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic incisional ventral hernia repair (LIVHR) is often followed by seroma formation, bulging and failure to restore abdominal wall function. These outcomes are risk factors for hernia recurrence, chronic pain and poor quality of life (QoL). We aimed to evaluate whether LIVHR combined with defect closure (hybrid) follows as a diminished seroma formation and thereby has a lower rate of hernia recurrence and chronic pain compared to standard LIVHR. METHODS: This study is a multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial. From November 2012 to May 2015, 193 patients undergoing LIVHR for primary incisional hernia with fascial defect size from 2 to 7 cm were recruited in 11 Finnish hospitals. Patients were randomised to either a laparoscopic (LG) or a hybrid (HG) repair group. The main outcome measure was hernia recurrence, evaluated clinically and radiologically at a 1-year follow-up visit. At the same time, chronic pain scores and QoL were also measured. RESULTS: At the 1-year-control visit, we found no difference in hernia recurrence between the study groups. Altogether, 11 recurrent hernias were found in ultrasound examination, producing a recurrence rate of 6.4%. Of these recurrences, 6 (6.7%) were in the LG group and 5 (6.1%) were in the HG group (p > 0.90). The visual analogue scores for pain were low in both groups; the mean visual analogue scale (VAS) was 1.5 in LG and 1.4 in HG (p = 0.50). QoL improved significantly comparing preoperative status to 1 year after operation in both groups since the bodily pain score increased by 7.8 points (p < 0.001) and physical functioning by 4.3 points (p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Long-term follow-up is needed to demonstrate the potential advantage of a hybrid operation with fascial defect closure. Both techniques had low hernia recurrence rates 1 year after operation. LIVHR reduces chronic pain and physical impairment and improves QoL. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinical trial number NCT02542085.

Complications in Laparoscopic Versus Open Incisional Ventral Hernia Repair. A Retrospective Comparative Study.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to evaluate peri- and postoperative outcomes, especially severe complications in adult incisional ventral hernia repair performed by open or laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Adult patients who were operated for incisional ventral hernias in two tertiary hospitals in Finland during 2006-2012 were included in the study. Clinical data were collected from patient registers. Peri- and postoperative parameters were gathered and compared between open and laparoscopic groups. Postoperative complications were analyzed, and the focus was on major complications. RESULTS: The results of 818 hernioplasties were evaluated: 291 (36.3 %) open and 527 (63.7 %) laparoscopic operations. In the laparoscopic group, the number of patients with postoperative complications was slightly lower (18.4 vs. 23.4 %, p = 0.090), and there were significantly fewer surgical site infections (3.2 vs. 8.6 %, p = 0.001). Twelve major complications occurred. In the laparoscopic group, four of the five major complications were consequences of undetected enterotomies, leading to reoperations, longer hospital stays, and death of one patient. Major complications in the open group consisted of four cardiac infarctions and three septic surgical site infections. Complex adhesions had a significant influence on major complications, enterotomies, and surgical site infections. Laparoscopic operations had a lower mean blood loss (13 vs. 31.5 ml, p = 0.028), and hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days, p = 0.001) compared to open operations. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic incisional ventral hernia repair has a low rate of postoperative complications but it is associated with an increased risk of undetected enterotomies, in particular during cases involving adhesiolysis.

Laparoscopic Colectomy vs Laparoscopic CME: a Retrospective Study of Two Hospitals with Comparable Laparoscopic Experience.

PURPOSE: To compare laparoscopic non-CME colectomy with laparoscopic CME colectomy in two hospitals with similar experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: Data was collected retrospectively from Päijät-Häme Central Hospital (PHCH, NCME group) and Central Finland Central Hospital (CFCH, CME group) records. Elective laparoscopic resections performed during 2007-2016 for UICC stage I-III adenocarcinoma were included to assess differences in short-term outcome and survival. RESULTS: There were 340 patients in the NCME group and 325 patients in the CME group. CME delivered longer specimens (p < 0.001), wider resection margins (p < 0.001), and more lymph nodes (p < 0.001) but did not result in better 5-year overall or cancer-specific survival (NCME 77.9% vs CME 72.9%, p = 0.528, NCME 93.2% vs CME 88.9%, p = 0.132, respectively). Thirty-day morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay were similar between the groups. Conversion to open surgery was associated with decreased survival. DISCUSSION: Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is reported to improve survival. Most previous studies have compared open CME with open non-CME (NCME) or open CME with laparoscopic CME. NCME populations have been historical or heterogeneous, potentially causing bias in the interpretation of results. Studies comparing laparoscopic CME with laparoscopic NCME are few and involve only small numbers of patients. In this study, diligently performed laparoscopic non-CME D2 resection delivered disease-free survival results comparable with laparoscopic CME but was not safer.