Economic analysis of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia versus laparoscopic: is it sustainable for the healthcare system?

INTRODUCTION: There has been a rapid proliferation of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia, mainly in the United States, as it has shown similar outcomes to the laparoscopic approach but with a significant increase in associated costs. Our objective is to conduct a cost analysis in our setting (Spanish National Health System). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective single-center comparative study on inguinal hernia repair using a robotic approach versus laparoscopic approach. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients who underwent either robotic or laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair between October 2021 and July 2023 were analyzed. Out of these 98 patients, 20 (20.4%) were treated with the robotic approach, while 78 (79.6%) underwent the laparoscopic approach. When comparing both approaches, no significant differences were found in terms of complications, recurrences, or readmissions. However, the robotic group exhibited a longer surgical time (86 ± 33.07 min vs. 40 ± 14.46 min, p < 0.001), an extended hospital stays (1.6 ± 0.503 days vs. 1.13 ± 0.727 days, p < 0.007), as well as higher procedural costs (2318.63 ± 205.15 € vs. 356.81 ± 110.14 €, p < 0.001) and total hospitalization costs (3272.48 ± 408.49 € vs. 1048.61 ± 460.06 €, p < 0.001). These results were consistent when performing subgroup analysis for unilateral and bilateral hernias. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits observed in terms of recurrence rates and post-surgical complications do not justify the additional costs incurred by the robotic approach to inguinal hernia within the national public healthcare system. Nevertheless, it represents a simpler way to initiate the robotic learning curve, justifying its use in a training context.

Delphi consensus statement for understanding and managing the subcostal hernia: subcostal hernias collaborative report (scholar study).

INTRODUCTION: Subcostal hernias are categorized as L1 based on the European Hernia Society (EHS) classification and frequently involve M1, M2, and L2 sites. These are common after hepatopancreatic and biliary surgeries. The literature on subcostal hernias mostly comprises of retrospective reviews of small heterogenous cohorts, unsurprisingly leading to no consensus or guidelines. Given the limited literature and lack of consensus or guidelines for dealing with these hernias, we planned for a Delphi consensus to aid in decision making to repair subcostal hernias. METHODS: We adopted a modified Delphi technique to establish consensus regarding the definition, characteristics, and surgical aspects of managing subcostal hernias (SCH). It was a four-phase Delphi study reflecting the widely accepted model, consisting of: 1. Creating a query. 2. Building an expert panel. 3. Executing the Delphi rounds. 4. Analysing, presenting, and reporting the Delphi results. More than 70% of agreement was defined as a consensus statement. RESULTS: The 22 experts who agreed to participate in this Delphi process for Subcostal Hernias (SCH) comprised 7 UK surgeons, 6 mainland European surgeons, 4 Indians, 3 from the USA, and 2 from Southeast Asia. This Delphi study on subcostal hernias achieved consensus on the following areas-use of mesh in elective cases; the retromuscular position with strong discouragement for onlay mesh; use of macroporous medium-weight polypropylene mesh; use of the subcostal incision over midline incision if there is no previous midline incision; TAR over ACST; defect closure where MAS is used; transverse suturing over vertical suturing for closure of circular defects; and use of peritoneal flap when necessary. CONCLUSION: This Delphi consensus defines subcostal hernias and gives insight into the consensus for incision, dissection plane, mesh placement, mesh type, and mesh fixation for these hernias.

Laparoscopic intracorporeal rectus aponeuroplasty (LIRA) technique versus intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM plus) for ventral hernia repair: a comparative analysis.

PURPOSE: Primary aim of this study is to compare the postoperative outcomes of the laparoscopic intracorporeal rectus aponeuroplasty (LIRA) technique to the intraperitoneal onlay mesh closing the defect (IPOM plus), in terms of recurrence and bulging rates at one-year follow-up; secondary aim is to compare the postoperative complications, seroma and pain at 30 days and one-year after surgery. METHODS: Patients with midline ventral hernia of 4-10 cm in width were included. Computed tomography scan was performed before, 1 and 12 months after surgery. Pain was evaluated using the visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Forty-five and forty-seven consecutive patients underwent LIRA and IPOM plus, respectively. Preoperatively, smoke habits and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease rates were statistically significantly higher in the LIRA group (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.012, respectively). Two bulgings (4.4%) occurred in the LIRA group, while in the IPOM plus group occurred 10 bulgings (21.3%) and three recurrences (6.4%) (p = 0.017 and p = 0.085, respectively). Postoperatively, seven (15.6%, Clavien-Dindo I) and four complications (8.5%, two Clavien-Dindo I, two Clavien-Dindo III-b) occurred in the LIRA and in the IPOM plus group, respectively (p = 0.298). One month after surgery, clinical seroma, occurred in five (11.1%) and eight patients (17%) in the LIRA and in the IPOM plus group, respectively (p = 0.416). During follow-up, pain reduction occurred, without statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, even if we analysed a small series, LIRA showed lower bulging and recurrence rates in comparison to IPOM plus at one-year follow-up. Further prospective studies, with a large sample of patients and longer follow-up are required to draw definitive conclusions.

European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) consensus on Indocyanine Green (ICG) fluorescence-guided surgery.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the use of Indocyanine Green (ICG) fluorescence-guided surgery during open and laparoscopic procedures has exponentially expanded across various clinical settings. The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference on this topic with the aim of creating evidence-based statements and recommendations for the surgical community. METHODS: An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate to this project. Systematic reviews of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane libraries were performed to identify evidence on potential benefits of ICG fluorescence-guided surgery on clinical practice and patient outcomes. Statements and recommendations were prepared and unanimously agreed by the panel; they were then submitted to all EAES members through a two-rounds online survey and results presented at the EAES annual congress, Barcelona, November 2021. RESULTS: A total of 18,273 abstracts were screened with 117 articles included. 22 statements and 16 recommendations were generated and approved. In some areas, such as the use of ICG fluorescence-guided surgery during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the perfusion assessment in colorectal surgery and the search for the sentinel lymph nodes in gynaecological malignancies, the large number of evidences in literature has allowed us to strongly recommend the use of ICG for a better anatomical definition and a reduction in post-operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, from the systematic literature review performed by the experts panel and the survey extended to all EAES members, ICG fluorescence-guided surgery could be considered a safe and effective technology. Future robust clinical research is required to specifically validate multiple organ-specific applications and the potential benefits of this technique on clinical outcomes.

Laparoscopic approach in emergency for the treatment of acute incarcerated groin hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive approach for acute incarcerated groin hernia repair is still debated. To clarify this debate, a literature review was performed. METHODS: Search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases, founding 28,183 articles. RESULTS: Fifteen articles, and 433 patients were included (16 bilateral hernia, range 3-8). Three hundred and eighty-eight (75.3%) and 103 patients (22.9%) underwent transabdominal preperitoneal and totally extraperitoneal repair, respectively, and in 5 patients, the defect was buttressed with broad ligament (1.1%) (not specified in 3 patients). Herniated structures were resected in 48 cases (range 1-9). Intraoperative complications and conversion occurred in 4 (range 0-1) and 10 (range 0-3) patients, respectively. Mean operative time and hospital stay ranged between 50 and 147 min, and 2 and 7 days, respectively. Postoperative complications ranged between 1 and 19. Five studies compared laparoscopic and open approaches (163 and 235 patients). Herniated structures were resected in 19 (11.7%) and 42 cases (17.9%) for laparoscopic and open approach, respectively (p = 0.1191). Intraoperative complications and conversion occurred in one (0.6%) and 5 (2.1%) patients (p = 0.4077), and in two (1.2%) and 19 (8.1%) patients (p = 0.0023), in case of laparoscopic or open approach, respectively. Mean operative time and hospital stay were 94.4 ± 40.2 and 102.8 ± 43.7 min, and 4.8 ± 2.2 and 11 ± 3.1 days, in laparoscopic or open approach, respectively. Sixteen (9.8%) and 57 (24.3%) postoperative complications occurred. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy seems to be a safe and feasible approach for the treatment of acute incarcerated groin hernia. Further studies are required for definitive conclusions.

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.

Reporting guideline for interventional trials of primary and incisional ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Primary and incisional ventral hernia trials collect unstandardized inconsistent data, limiting data interpretation and comparison. This study aimed to create two minimum data sets for primary and incisional ventral hernia interventional trials to standardize data collection and improve trial comparison. To support these data sets, standardized patient-reported outcome measures and trial methodology criteria were created. METHODS: To construct these data sets, nominal group technique methodology was employed, involving 15 internationally recognized abdominal wall surgeons and two patient representatives. Initially a maximum data set was created from previous systematic and panellist reviews. Thereafter, three stages of voting took place: stage 1, selection of the number of variables for data set inclusion; stage 2, selection of variables to be included; and stage 3, selection of variable definitions and detection methods. A steering committee interpreted and analysed the data. RESULTS: The maximum data set contained 245 variables. The three stages of voting commenced in October 2019 and had been completed by July 2020. The final primary ventral hernia data set included 32 variables, the incisional ventral hernia data set included 40 variables, the patient-reported outcome measures tool contained 25 questions, and 40 methodological criteria were chosen. The best known variable definitions were selected for accurate variable description. CT was selected as the optimal preoperative descriptor of hernia morphology. Standardized follow-up at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years was selected. CONCLUSION: These minimum data sets, patient-reported outcome measures, and methodological criteria have allowed creation of a manual for investigators aiming to undertake primary ventral hernia or incisional ventral hernia interventional trials. Adopting these data sets will improve trial methods and comparisons.

Endoscopic retromuscular technique (eTEP) vs conventional laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair with defect closure (IPOM +) for midline hernias. A case-control study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed at clinical results in terms of postoperative pain and functional recovery of new technique (eTEP) compared to IPOM + for ventral/incisional midline hernias. Recurrence rate, intra/postoperative complications and aesthetic results are secondary aims. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients requiring minimally invasive hernia repair were collected. From January 2015 to September 2018, patients with midline ventral/incisional hernias underwent IPOM + were compared to patients underwent eTEP procedure from October 2018 to December 2019 in a case/control study. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients in IPOM + group and 40 in eTEP group were included. No significant differences were identified when hernias types, mean defect area, mean mesh area and intraoperative/postoperative complications (except seroma rate in favor of eTEP group) were compared. Operative time and hospital stay were significantly higher in eTEP group and IPOM + group, respectively. eTEP group showed significantly less pain on 1st, 7th and 30th postoperative days than IPOM + group. Restriction of activities was significantly decreased in eTEP group on the 30th and 180th day after surgery. Significant differences were observed in terms of cosmetic results 30th and 180th days after surgery in favor of eTEP group. Average follow-up was 15 months in eTEP group and 28 months in IPOM + group. No recurrences were identified in eTEP group and one recurrence in IPOM + group with no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic retromuscular technique shows significant lower postoperative pain, better functional recovery and cosmesis than IPOM + without differences in intra/postoperative complications (except seroma rate) or recurrences during the follow-up. eTEP requires longer operative time.

META Score: An International Consensus Scoring System on Mesh-Tissue Adhesions.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the lack of consensus on postoperative mesh-tissue adhesion scoring leads to incomparable scientific results. The aim of this study was to develop an adhesion score recognized by experts in the field of hernia surgery. METHODS: Authors of three or more previously published articles on both mesh-tissue adhesion scores and postoperative adhesions were marked as experts. They were queried on seven items using a modified Delphi method. The items concerned the utility of adhesion scoring models, the appropriateness of macroscopic and microscopic variables, the range and use of composite scores or subscores, adhesion-related complications and follow-up length. This study comprised two questionnaire-based rounds and one consensus meeting. RESULTS: The first round was completed by 23 experts (82%), the second round by 18 experts (64%). Of those 18 experts, ten were able to participate in the final consensus meeting and all approved the final proposal. From a total of 158 items, consensus was reached on 90 items. The amount of mesh surface covered with adhesions, tenacity and thickness of adhesions and organ involvement was concluded to be a minimal set of variables to be communicated separately in each future study on mesh adhesions. CONCLUSION: The MEsh Tissue Adhesion scoring system is the first consensus-based scoring system with a wide backing of renowned experts and can be used to assess mesh-related adhesions. By including this minimal set of variables in future research interstudy comparability and objectivity can be increased and eventually linked to clinically relevant outcomes.

Polytetrafluoroethylene versus polypropylene mesh during laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair of inguinal hernia: short- and long-term results of a double-blind clinical randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Aim of the study is to compare macroporous (> 1 mm2) polytetrafluoroethylene mesh (LP-PTFE) versus microporous (< 1 mm2) polypropylene mesh (SP-PPL) in terms of postoperative acute and chronic discomfort and pain, difficulty in mesh handling and long-term recurrence rate. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with bilateral hernia were enrolled in this double-blind randomized controlled trial (NCT02023203). Each hernia, in the same patient, was randomized to implant LP-PTFE or SP-PPL mesh during totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair. Patients were followed at 7 days, 1, 3, 6, 12 and 60 months after surgery. Visual analog scale (VAS) score was employed to evaluate the outcomes. Student's t test was used in case of normally distributed continuous variables, while the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used in case of not normally distributed variables. Chi square test was used for analysis of categorical variables. RESULTS: Median VAS discomfort score with SP-PPL was significantly higher than LP-PTFE at 1 and 3 months after surgery (p = 0.003 in both cases). LP-PTFE showed significantly lower median score than SP-PPL at 7 days after surgery (p = 0.025) regarding pain at movement. Testicular pain was lower in case of LP-PTFE than SP-PPL at 7 days, 1 and 3 months after surgery (p = 0.005, p = 0.004 and p = 0.004, respectively). LP-PTFE was significantly more difficult to handle (p = 0.001). At 60 months, one recurrence was observed in the LP-PTFE group (p = 1.0000). CONCLUSIONS: LP-PTFE has less postoperative discomfort and pain up to 3 months after surgery, without differences after that period, although it shows more difficulty in handling and recurrences occur even if not statistically significant.

Correction to: European Hernia Society (EHS) guidance for the management of adult patients with a hernia during the COVID­19 pandemic.

The originally published article: The surname and given name of authors, M. Pawlak and A.C. de Beaux has been incorrectly published.

Could we reduce adhesions to the intra-abdominal mesh in the first week? Experimental study with different methods of fixation.

BACKGROUND: Adhesion formation is a major problem when a mesh is exposed to intraabodminal viscera, with potential severe complications (bowel occlusion, fistulas or abscesses). New methods for preventing adhesions from a polypropylene mesh placed intra-abdominally or to solve difficult situations, such as when the peritoneum cannot be closed during a TAPP repair for an inguinal hernia, are still being seeked. This study mimics in an animal model a situation that can be found in clinical practice during laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty. A polypropylene mesh could be exposed to the intra-abdominal cavity even when the peritoneum is closed due to different circumstances, with no options to guarantee the prosthetic material of being exposed to the intrabdominal viscera. Different options have been suggested to solve these situations, being proposed in this study to cover the visceral surface of the mesh with an absorbable sponge containing thrombin, fibrinogen, and clotting factors (Tachosil®, Nycomed, Takeda, Osaka, Japan), to assess its use as a barrier to prevent postoperative adhesion formation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty Wistar white rats (300-450 mg) were included in this study as experimental animals, being randomized into three groups (A, B, and C). We performed a bilateral prosthetic repair with conventional polypropylene mesh (2 × 2 cm, 82 kD). Prosthesis fixation was performed as follows. Group A: absorbable suture; group B: metal staples; group C: metal tackers. A piece of insulating absorbable sponge (Tachosil® 5 × 5 cm) was placed to cover the visceral surface of mesh placed at the right side of each animal. After 10 days, we performed a gross examination (by laparoscopy and laparotomy), measuring the quantity and the quality of the adhesions. Samples were taken for histopathological analysis. RESULTS: Tachosil®-treated prostheses showed a statistically significant decrease in the quality of the adhesion found (p < 0.05). In addition, a smaller quantity of adhesions was identified in barrier-treated animals, although this lacked statistical significance. The histologic analysis showed no significant differences: more edema with the untreated mesh and increased angiogenesis and a lower degree of necrosis in mesh covered with Tachosil®. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Tachosil® as a barrier material led to the absence of strong adhesions as it prevented direct contact between the mesh and the internal organs, preventing major problems associated with strong adhesions.

International classification of abdominal wall planes (ICAP) to describe mesh insertion for ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Nomenclature for mesh insertion during ventral hernia repair is inconsistent and confusing. Several terms, including 'inlay', 'sublay' and 'underlay', can refer to the same anatomical planes in the indexed literature. This frustrates comparisons of surgical practice and may invalidate meta-analyses comparing surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to establish an international classification of abdominal wall planes. METHODS: A Delphi study was conducted involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall surgeons. Different terms describing anterior abdominal wall planes were identified via literature review and expert consensus. The initial list comprised 59 possible terms. Panellists completed a questionnaire that suggested a list of options for individual abdominal wall planes. Consensus on a term was predefined as occurring if selected by at least 80 per cent of panellists. Terms scoring less than 20 per cent were removed. RESULTS: Voting started August 2018 and was completed by January 2019. In round 1, 43 terms (73 per cent) were selected by less than 20 per cent of panellists and 37 new terms were suggested, leaving 53 terms for round 2. Four planes reached consensus in round 2, with the terms 'onlay', 'inlay', 'preperitoneal' and 'intraperitoneal'. Thirty-five terms (66 per cent) were selected by less than 20 per cent of panellists and were removed. After round 3, consensus was achieved for 'anterectus', 'interoblique', 'retro-oblique' and 'retromuscular'. Default consensus was achieved for the 'retrorectus' and 'transversalis fascial' planes. CONCLUSION: Consensus concerning abdominal wall planes was agreed by 20 internationally recognized surgeons. Adoption should improve communication and comparison among surgeons and research studies.

ANTECEDENTES: La nomenclatura de la inserción de una malla para la reparación de una hernia incisional ventral (ventral hernia, VH) es inconsistente y confusa. En la literatura indexada se usan varios términos, tales como 'inlay', 'sublay', y 'underlay' que pueden referirse a los mismos planos anatómicos. Este hecho frustra las comparaciones de técnicas quirúrgicas e invalida los metaanálisis que comparan resultados quirúrgicos en función del plano de inserción de la malla. En consecuencia, el objetivo de este estudio fue establecer una clasificación internacional de los planos de la pared abdominal (International Classification of Abdominal Wall Planes, ICAP). MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio Delphi, en el que participaron 20 cirujanos de pared abdominal reconocidos internacionalmente. Se identificaron diferentes términos que describían los planos de la pared abdominal anterior mediante la revisión de la literatura y el consenso de expertos. La lista inicial incluía 59 términos posibles. Los panelistas completaron un cuestionario que sugería una lista de opciones para los planos individuales de la pared abdominal. El consenso sobre un término fue predefinido cuando dicho término había sido seleccionado por ≥ 80% de panelistas. Se eliminaron los términos con una puntuación < 20%. RESULTADOS: La votación comenzó en agosto de 2018 y se completó en enero de 2019. Durante la Ronda 1, 43 (73%) términos fueron seleccionados por < 20% de los panelistas y se sugirieron 37 términos nuevos, dejando 53 términos para la Ronda 2. Cuatro planos alcanzaron un consenso en la Ronda 2 con los términos 'onlay', 'inlay', 'pre-peritoneal' e 'intra-peritoneal'. Treinta y cinco (66%) términos fueron seleccionados por < 20% de los panelistas y fueron eliminados. Después de la Ronda 3, se logró un consenso para 'anterectus' (ante-recto), 'interoblique' (inter-oblicuo), 'retrooblique' (retro-oblicuo) y 'retromuscular'. Se alcanzó un consenso por defecto para los planos 'retrorectus' (retro-recto) y 'transversalis fascial' (fascial transverso). CONCLUSIÓN: La ICAP ha sido desarrollada por el consenso de 20 cirujanos reconocidos internacionalmente. Su implementación debería mejorar la comunicación y la comparación entre cirujanos y estudios de investigación.