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.

Meta-analysis on Materials and Techniques for Laparotomy Closure: The MATCH Review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate closure materials and suture techniques for emergency and elective laparotomies. The primary outcome was incisional hernia after 12 months, and the secondary outcomes were burst abdomen and surgical site infection. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted until September 2017. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated by at least 3 assessors using critical appraisal checklists. Meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 23 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. There was no evidence from RCTs using the same suture technique in both study arms that any suture material (fast-absorbable/slowly absorbable/non-absorbable) is superior in reducing incisional hernias. There is no evidence that continuous suturing is superior in reducing incisional hernias compared to interrupted suturing. When using a slowly absorbable suture for continuous suturing in elective midline closure, the small bites technique results in significantly less incisional hernias than a large bites technique (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19, 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: There is no high-quality evidence available concerning the best suture material or technique to reduce incisional hernia rate when closing a laparotomy. When using a slowly absorbable suture and a continuous suturing technique with small tissue bites, the incisional hernia rate is significantly reduced compared with a large bites technique.

European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project. METHODS: The guidelines development group consisted of general, hernia and colorectal surgeons, a biostatistician and a biologist, from 14 European countries. These guidelines conformed to the AGREE II standards and the GRADE methodology. The databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and the gray literature through OpenGrey were searched. Quality assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. The guidelines were presented at the 38th European Hernia Society Congress and each key question was evaluated in a consensus voting of congress participants. RESULTS: End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia, compared to other types of stomas. Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Currently available classifications are not validated; however, we suggest the use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting. There is insufficient evidence on the policy of watchful waiting, the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. The use of a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon construction of an end colostomy is strongly recommended. No such recommendation can be made for other types of stomas at present. It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, a mesh without a hole is suggested in preference to a keyhole mesh when laparoscopic repair is performed. CONCLUSION: An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.

Triclosan-coated sutures and surgical site infection in abdominal surgery: the TRISTAN review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a frequent complication of abdominal surgery causing increased morbidity. Triclosan-coated sutures are recommended to reduce SSI. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the rate of SSI in abdominal surgery when using triclosan-coated or uncoated sutures for fascial closure. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science including publications until August 2017. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated using critical appraisal checklists from SIGN. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis were performed with Review Manager v5.3 and TSA software, respectively. RESULTS: Eight RCTs on abdominal wall closure were included in the meta-analysis. In an overall comparison including both triclosan-coated Vicryl and PDS sutures for fascial closure, triclosan-coated sutures were superior in reducing the rate of SSI (OR 0.67; 0.46-0.98). When evaluating PDS sutures separately, there was no effect of triclosan-coating on the rate of SSI (OR 0.85; 0.61-1.17). Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size (RIS) of 797 patients for triclosan-coated Vicryl sutures was almost reached with an accrued information size (AIS) of 795 patients. For triclosan-coated PDS sutures an AIS of 2707 patients was obtained, but the RIS was estimated to be 18,693 patients. CONCLUSION: Triclosan-coated Vicryl sutures for abdominal fascial closure decrease the risk of SSI significantly and based on the trial sequential analysis further RCTs will not change that outcome. There was no effect on SSI rate with the use of triclosan-coated PDS sutures for abdominal fascial closure, and it is unknown whether additional RCTs will change that.

Prophylactic meshes in the abdominal wall.

BACKGROUND: There is a high incidence of incisional hernias in specific high-risk patient populations. For these patients, the prophylactic placement of mesh during closure of the abdominal wall incision has been investigated in several prospective studies. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to summarize and synthetize the currently available evidence on prophylactic meshes in a narrative review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews were performed on the use of prophylactic meshes in different indications: midline laparotomies, stoma reversal wounds, and permanent stoma. RESULTS: High-quality data from randomized trials shows that prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh implantation is safe and effective, both in prevention of incisional hernias after midline laparotomies and during construction of an elective end colostomy. It should be considered in patients with a high risk for incisional hernia development, such as those receiving open abdominal aortic aneurysm, obesity, or colorectal cancer surgery. It is strongly recommended for construction of an elective permanent end colostomy. For midline laparotomies, both the retromuscular and onlay positions of a prophylactic mesh seem equally effective and safe. For parastomal hernia prevention, only the retromuscular prophylactic mesh and its use for end colostomies has been proven to be effective and safe. No data support the choice of a biological mesh or a synthetic absorbable mesh over a non-absorbable synthetic mesh, even in clean-contaminated surgical procedures. No data yet support the standard use of prophylactic mesh when closing the wound during closure of a temporary stoma. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh implantation should be standard of care during construction of an elective end colostomy and will become standard of care for midline laparotomies in patients at a high risk of incisional hernias.

[Prophylactic meshes in the abdominal wall. German version]. / Prophylaktische Netze an der Bauchdecke.

BACKGROUND: There is a high incidence of incisional hernias in specific high-risk patient populations. For these patients, the prophylactic placement of mesh during closure of the abdominal wall incision has been investigated in several prospective studies. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to summarize and synthetize the currently available evidence on prophylactic meshes in a narrative review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews were performed on the use of prophylactic meshes in different indications: midline laparotomies, stoma reversal wounds, and permanent stoma. RESULTS: High-quality data from randomized trials shows that prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh implantation is safe and effective, both in prevention of incisional hernias after midline laparotomies and during construction of an elective end colostomy. It should be considered in patients with a high risk for incisional hernia development, such as those receiving open abdominal aortic aneurysm, obesity, or colorectal cancer surgery. It is strongly recommended for construction of an elective permanent end colostomy. For midline laparotomies, both the retromuscular and onlay positions of a prophylactic mesh seem equally effective and safe. For parastomal hernia prevention, only the retromuscular prophylactic mesh and its use for end colostomies has been proven to be effective and safe. No data support the choice of a biological mesh or a synthetic absorbable mesh over a non-absorbable synthetic mesh, even in clean-contaminated surgical procedures. No data yet support the standard use of prophylactic mesh when closing the wound during closure of a temporary stoma. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh implantation should be the standard of care during construction of an elective end colostomy and will become the standard of care for midline laparotomies in patients at high risk of incisional hernias.

[Technical principles of incisional hernia surgery]. / Technische Prinzipien der Narbenhernienchirurgie.

Many publications are available on the best surgical techniques and treatment of incisional hernias with reports of experiences and randomized clinical studies at the two extremes of the evidence scale. The ultimate proof of the best operative technique has, however, not yet been achieved. In practically no other field of surgery are the variability and the resulting potential aims of surgery so great. The aim of surgery is to provide patients with the optimal recommendation out of a catalogue of possibilities from a holistic perspective. This article describes the surgical techniques using meshes for strengthening (in combination with an anatomical reconstruction) and for replacement of the abdominal wall (with bridging of the defect).

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery through the umbilicus is associated with a higher incidence of trocar-site hernia than conventional laparoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has been developed with the objective to reduce surgical trauma, decrease associated surgical stress and to improve cosmetic outcome. However, concerns have been raised regarding the risk of trocar-site hernia following this approach. Previous meta-analyses have suggested a trend toward higher hernia rates, but have failed to demonstrate a significant difference between single-incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery. METHOD: Medline, AMED, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched up to May 2014. Randomized controlled trials comparing single-incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery were considered for inclusion. Studies with patients aged less than 18 years and those reporting on robotic surgery were disregarded. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to measure the comparative risk of trocar-site hernia following single-incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Nineteen randomized trials encompassing 1705 patients were included. Trocar-site hernia occurred in 2.2% of patients in the single-incision group and in 0.7% of patients in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (odds ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval 1.00-5.08, p = 0.05). Sensitivity analysis of quality randomized trials validated the outcome estimates of the primary analysis. There was no heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 0%) and no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSION: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery involving entry into the peritoneal cavity through the umbilicus is associated with a slightly higher risk of trocar-site hernia than conventional laparoscopy. Its effect on long-term morbidity and quality of life is a matter for further investigation.

[Laparotomy closure - do we know how?(Guideline of the European Hernia Society)]. / Uzáver laparotomie - víme jak?(Doporucení Evropské kýlní spolecnosti).

The recurrence rate of surgical treatment of incisional hernia is high. The material and surgical technique used to close the abdominal wall following every surgery contribute as important risk factors in incisional hernia formation. However, by optimising abdominal wall closure, many patients can be spared from developing this type of complication. The European Hernia Society has established a Guidelines Development Group with a goal to research the literature and write a series of recommendations of how to close the abdomen and minimize the risk of incisional hernia in accordance with the principles of evidence-based medicine. To decrease the incidence of incisional hernias, the following is recommended: To utilise a non-midline approach to a laparotomy whenever possible. To perform a continuous suturing technique using a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in a single layer aponeurotic closure technique. To perform the small bites technique with a suture to wound length (SL/WL) ratio at least 4/1. Not to close the peritoneum separately. To avoid rapidly resorbable materials. To consider using a prophylactic mesh in high-risk patients. To use the smallest trocar size adequate for the procedure and closing the fascial defect if trocars larger or equal to 10 mm are used in laparoscopic surgery. Key words: incisional hernia laparotomy laparotomy closure suturing material.

European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions.

BACKGROUND: The material and the surgical technique used to close an abdominal wall incision are important determinants of the risk of developing an incisional hernia. Optimising closure of abdominal wall incisions holds a potential to prevent patients suffering from incisional hernias and for important costs savings in health care. METHODS: The European Hernia Society formed a Guidelines Development Group to provide guidelines for all surgical specialists who perform abdominal incisions in adult patients on the materials and methods used to close the abdominal wall. The guidelines were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and methodological guidance was taken from Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). The literature search included publications up to April 2014. The guidelines were written using the AGREE II instrument. An update of these guidelines is planned for 2017. RESULTS: For many of the Key Questions that were studied no high quality data was detected. Therefore, some strong recommendations could be made but, for many Key Questions only weak recommendations or no recommendation could be made due to lack of sufficient evidence. RECOMMENDATIONS: To decrease the incidence of incisional hernias it is strongly recommended to utilise a non-midline approach to a laparotomy whenever possible. For elective midline incisions, it is strongly recommended to perform a continuous suturing technique and to avoid the use of rapidly absorbable sutures. It is suggested using a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in a single layer aponeurotic closure technique without separate closure of the peritoneum. A small bites technique with a suture to wound length (SL/WL) ratio at least 4/1 is the current recommended method of fascial closure. Currently, no recommendations can be given on the optimal technique to close emergency laparotomy incisions. Prophylactic mesh augmentation appears effective and safe and can be suggested in high-risk patients, like aortic aneurysm surgery and obese patients. For laparoscopic surgery, it is suggested using the smallest trocar size adequate for the procedure and closure of the fascial defect if trocars larger or equal to 10 mm are used. For single incision laparoscopic surgery, we suggest meticulous closure of the fascial incision to avoid an increased risk of incisional hernias.

The principles of abdominal wound closure.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication of abdominal surgery. Its incidence has been reported as high as 39.9%. Many factors influence IH rates. Of these, surgical technique is the only factor directly controlled by the surgeon. There is much evidence in the literature on the optimal midline laparotomy closure technique. Despite the high level of evidence, this optimal closure technique has not met wide acceptance in the surgical community. In preparation of a clinical trial, the PRINCIPLES trial, a literature review was conducted to find the best evidence based technique for abdominal wall closure after midline laparotomy. METHODS: An Embase search was performed. Articles describing closure of the fascia after midline laparotomy by different suture techniques and/or suture materials were selected. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified, including five meta-analyses. Analysis of the literature showed significant lower IH rates with single layer closure, using a continuous technique with slowly absorbable suture material. No significant difference in IH incidence was found comparing slowly absorbable and non absorbable sutures. Furthermore, a suture length to wound length ratio of four or more and short stitch length significantly decreased IH rates. CONCLUSIONS: Careful analysis of the literature indicates that an evidenced based optimal midline laparotomy closure technique can be identified. This technique involves single layer closure with a running suture, using a slowly absorbable suture with a suture length to wound length ratio of four or more and a short stitch length. We adopt this technique as the PRINCIPLES technique.

Recommendations for reporting outcome results in abdominal wall repair: results of a Consensus meeting in Palermo, Italy, 28-30 June 2012.

BACKGROUND: The literature dealing with abdominal wall surgery is often flawed due to lack of adherence to accepted reporting standards and statistical methodology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EuraHS Working Group (European Registry of Abdominal Wall Hernias) organised a consensus meeting of surgical experts and researchers with an interest in abdominal wall surgery, including a statistician, the editors of the journal Hernia and scientists experienced in meta-analysis. Detailed discussions took place to identify the basic ground rules necessary to improve the quality of research reports related to abdominal wall reconstruction. RESULTS: A list of recommendations was formulated including more general issues on the scientific methodology and statistical approach. Standards and statements are available, each depending on the type of study that is being reported: the CONSORT statement for the Randomised Controlled Trials, the TREND statement for non randomised interventional studies, the STROBE statement for observational studies, the STARLITE statement for literature searches, the MOOSE statement for metaanalyses of observational studies and the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A number of recommendations were made, including the use of previously published standard definitions and classifications relating to hernia variables and treatment; the use of the validated Clavien-Dindo classification to report complications in hernia surgery; the use of "time-to-event analysis" to report data on "freedom-of-recurrence" rather than the use of recurrence rates, because it is more sensitive and accounts for the patients that are lost to follow-up compared with other reporting methods. CONCLUSION: A set of recommendations for reporting outcome results of abdominal wall surgery was formulated as guidance for researchers. It is anticipated that the use of these recommendations will increase the quality and meaning of abdominal wall surgery research.

The laparoscopic modified Sugarbaker technique is safe and has a low recurrence rate: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Parastomal hernia is a frequent complication of intestinal stomata. Mesh repair gives the best results, with the mesh inserted via laparotomy or laparoscopically. It was the aim of this retrospective multicenter study to determine the early and late results of the laparoscopically performed, modified Sugarbaker technique with ePTFE mesh. METHODS: From 2005 to 2010, a total of 61 consecutive patients (mean age = 61 years), with a symptomatic parastomal hernia, underwent laparoscopic repair using the modified Sugarbaker technique with ePTFE mesh. Fifty-five patients had a colostomy, 4 patients an ileostomy, and 2 a urostomy according to Bricker. The records of the patients were reviewed with respect to patient characteristics, postoperative morbidity, and mortality. All patients underwent physical examination after a follow-up of at least 1 year to detect a recurrent hernia. Morbidity rate was 19 % and included wound infection (n = 1), ileus (n = 2), trocar site bleeding (n = 2), reintervention (n = 2), and pneumonia (n = 1). One patient died in the postoperative period due to metastasis of lung carcinoma that caused bowel obstruction. Concomitant incisional hernias were detected in 25 of 61 patients (41 %) and could be repaired at the same time in all cases. A recurrent hernia was found in three patients at physical examination, and in one patient an asymptomatic recurrence was found on a CT scan. The overall recurrence rate was 6.6 % after a mean follow-up of 26 months. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic Sugarbaker technique is a safe procedure for repairing parastomal hernias. In our study, the overall morbidity was 19 % and the recurrence rate was 6.6 % after a mean follow-up of 26 months. Moreover, the laparoscopic approach revealed concomitant hernias in 41 % of the patients, which could be repaired successfully at the same time.

Complications of mesh devices for intraperitoneal umbilical hernia repair: a word of caution.

Several mesh devices for the treatment of umbilical and other small ventral hernias have become available in recent years. These meshes have a dual layer consisting of a permanent or temporary barrier against adhesion formation between the viscera and the intraperitoneally exposed part of the mesh. We have seen several patients with serious late complications of these meshes placed intraperitoneally. Some of these patients needed small bowel resection and mesh removal. Others developed a recurrence because of improper deployment of the mesh in the intraperitoneal position. We think that, if preperitoneal deployment of such mesh devices is possible, this should be the preferred position, notwithstanding the fact that these meshes have a dual layer. There is a complete lack of convincing data on these mesh devices in the medical literature. No long-term data have been published, and, for three of the four mesh devices available, no publications on their use in humans were found. We think that surgeons adopting innovative mesh devices should register and follow their patients prospectively, at least until there are enough published studies with sufficiently large patient samples, acceptable follow up times, and favourable outcomes.

Laparoscopic repair of iatrogenic diaphragmatic hernias after sternectomy and pedicled omentoplasty.

PURPOSE: During sternectomy and pedicled omental flap transposition for the treatment of deep sternal wound infections, an ectopic diaphragmatic aperture is created. This may be the site of an iatrogenic diaphragmatic hernia, which may result in the herniation of intra-abdominal organs, and is difficult to repair. Although this complication was described as early as 1991, no effective treatment for this condition has been described previously. METHODS: The defect in poststernectomy diaphragmatic hernias has features similar to other incisional abdominal wall hernias, as well as to parastomal hernias and hiatal diaphragmatic hernias. We describe our laparoscopic approach developed from experience with these other types of hernias. We use an intraperitoneal flat mesh without keyhole. Fixation of the mesh to the anterior abdominal wall and to the diaphragm is done with a combination of sutures and spiral tackers. The omental pedicle is lateralised, fixed to the diaphragm and covered with the mesh. Special caution is needed when spiral tackers are applied to the diaphragm, because fatal complications of pericardial and cardiac injury have been described in laparoscopic hiatal diaphragmatic hernia repair. RESULTS: We used this technique in four patients who presented with a symptomatic poststernectomy diaphragmatic hernia. No procedure-related intra-operative or postoperative complications occurred. With a follow up of at least 12 months, no clinical or radiographic recurrence of diaphragmatic herniation has been encountered. CONCLUSION: We describe a laparoscopic technique to repair this difficult diaphragmatic hernia used in four patients, with a good clinical and computed tomographic outcome at 12 months.

Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias.

PURPOSE: A classification for primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias is needed to allow comparison of publications and future studies on these hernias. It is important to know whether the populations described in different studies are comparable. METHODS: Several members of the EHS board and some invitees gathered for 2 days to discuss the development of an EHS classification for primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. RESULTS: To distinguish primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias, a separate classification based on localisation and size as the major risk factors was proposed. Further data are needed to define the optimal size variable for classification of incisional hernias in order to distinguish subgroups with differences in outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A classification for primary abdominal wall hernias and a division into subgroups for incisional abdominal wall hernias, concerning the localisation of the hernia, was formulated.

"Suture hernia": identification of a new type of hernia presenting as a recurrence after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

After laparoscopic repair of ventral or incisional hernias, the recurrence rates reported are around 4%. Different mechanisms for the recurrences have been identified. We report two cases in which the patients were operated on laparoscopically for recurrence after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. In both cases, the site of the recurrent hernia was situated at the transfascial fixation sutures. Patients were treated by laparoscopy with a larger intraperitoneal mesh covering the new hernia and the old mesh.