Long-term evaluation of the Hernia Compact course of the German Hernia School.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2011, the German Hernia Society has developed the German Hernia School (GHS) as a standardized hernia surgery training program for younger surgeons, consisting of the Hernia Compact basic module. It is a standardized three day training program (cadaver workshop, ultrasound simulation training, and hands-on training). After 12 years of experience, a survey was conducted to evaluate the long term effect of this training. METHOD: Using an anonymous online-questionnaire, we contacted from September 2023 to October 2023 the Hernia Compact course participants via the congress organizer "Weitmeer" and the German Hernia Society. This online questionnaire contains 18 multiple choice questions regarding participants' age, gender, professional experience, participation in other modules of the German Hernia School, the effect of the course on their daily practice and their specific interest in hernia and abdominal wall surgery. RESULTS: A total of 146 participants responded to the anonymous online questionnaire. A majority of 132 of 146 participants (90.42%) responded that this course improved the quality of surgical and hernia training (n = 146, no missing data). 141 of 146 individuals (96.58%) recommended the course to surgical colleagues (n = 146, no missing data). There were 89.73% of participants, (n = 146, no missing data) that developed a specific interest in hernia and abdominal wall surgery after the course. For 78.08% (n = 146, no missing data) of participants hernia and abdominal wall surgery was one of the most important activities in their daily surgical practice. CONCLUSION: The standardized Hernia Compact basic course of the German Hernia School appears to have a huge impact on the quality of hernia surgery training in Germany and Austria. It might also help generate a specific interest in hernia surgery among participants.

[Inguinal hernia operations-Always outpatient?] / Leistenhernienoperationen ­ immer ambulant?

Inguinal hernia operations represent the most frequent operations overall with 300,000 interventions annually in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (DACH region). Despite the announced political willingness and the increasing pressure from the legislator to avoid costly inpatient treatment by carrying out as many outpatient operations as possible, outpatient treatment has so far played a subordinate role in the DACH region. The Boards of the specialist societies the German Hernia Society (DHG), the Surgical Working Group Hernia (CAH of the DHG), the Austrian Hernia Society (ÖHG) and the Swiss Working Group Hernia Surgery (SAHC) make inroads into this problem, describe the initial position and assess the current situation.

Perioperative outcome in groin hernia repair: what are the most important influencing factors?

INTRODUCTION: Using registry analyses, a large number of influencing factors on the perioperative outcome of groin hernia repair has been identified. The interactions between several influencing factors and differences in the influencing value have to date been inadequately investigated. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Herniamed Registry included all fully documented cases with minimum age of 16 years and groin hernia repair. Patients were assigned to the risk groups unilateral, bilateral, recurrent and emergency groin hernia repair. Multivariable analysis was performed to investigate the influence of confirmatory defined patient- and procedure-related characteristics on the outcome parameters intraoperative, postoperative general and postoperative surgical complications, complication-related reoperation and total perioperative complications. RESULTS: A highly significantly unfavorable association with the total perioperative complication rate was identified for emergency groin hernia repair, scrotal hernia, anticoagulant medication and coagulopathy. A significantly unfavorable relation with the total perioperative complication rate was found for recurrence procedure, bilateral repair, high age, ASA score III/IV, femoral hernia, antithrombotic medication, smoking, COPD and corticosteroid medication. A significantly favorable correlation with the total perioperative complication rate was observed for the laparo-endoscopic techniques, smaller defects, female gender, normal weight and medial hernia. CONCLUSION: Both the number of potential influencing factors and their influencing value on the perioperative outcome should be considered when estimating the individual risk of a patient with groin hernia repair.

What is the reality in outpatient vs inpatient groin hernia repair? An analysis from the Herniamed Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Groin hernia repair is performed increasingly more often as an outpatient procedure across the world. However, the rates are extremely different and vary between below 10% and above 90%. The outpatient procedure appears to negatively impact the proportion of laparo-endoscopic repairs. To date, only very few studies have compared inpatient vs outpatient groin hernia repair. METHODS: All outpatient and inpatient primary elective unilateral groin hernia repairs performed between 2010 and 2019 were identified in the Herniamed Registry and their treatment and outcomes compared. RESULTS: The 737 participating hospitals/surgeons performed a total of 342,072 primary elective unilateral groin hernia repairs from 2010 to 2019. The proportion of outpatient repairs was 20.2% in 2013 and 14.3% in 2019. Whereas the proportion of laparo-endoscopic repairs among the inpatient cases was 71.9% in 2019, the last year for which data are available, it was only 34.3%.for outpatient repairs. In outpatient groin hernia repairs, the rates of patients aged ≥ 60 years, with ASA score III and IV and risk factors were highly significantly lower. Given this rigorous patient selection for outpatient groin hernia repair, a more favorable perioperative outcome was achieved. At 1-year follow-up there were no significant differences in the pain and recurrence rates. CONCLUSION: With an appropriate patient selection, outpatient primary elective unilateral groin hernia repair can be performed with acceptable risks and good outcomes. Since to date no studies have compared inpatient vs outpatient groin hernia repair, the impact of a higher rate of outpatient groin hernia repair cannot currently be evaluated.

Comparison of outcomes in rectus abdominis diastasis repair-which data do we need in a hernia registry?

INTRODUCTION: Rectus abdominis diastasis (RAD) ± concomitant hernia is a complex hernia entity of growing significance in everyday clinical practice. Due to a multitude of described surgical techniques, a so far missing universally accepted classification and hardly existing comparative studies, there are no clear recommendations in guidelines. Therefore, "RAD ± concomitant hernia" will be documented as a separate hernia entity in the Herniamed Registry in the future. For this purpose, an appropriate case report form will be developed on the basis of the existing literature. METHODS: A systematic search of the available literature was performed in March 2021 using Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Embase, Springer Link, and the Cochrane Library. 93 publications were identified as relevant for this topic. RESULTS: In total 45 different surgical techniques for the repair of RAD ± concomitant hernia were identified in the surgical literature. RAD ± concomitant hernia is predominantly repaired by plastic but also by general surgeons. Classification of RAD ± concomitant hernia is based on a proposal of the German Hernia Society and the International Endohernia Society. Surgical techniques are summarized as groups subject to certain aspects: Techniques with abdominoplasty, open techniques, mini-less-open and endoscopic sublay techniques, mini-less-open and endoscopic subcutaneous/preaponeurotic techniques and laparoscopic techniques. Additional data impacting the outcome are also recorded as is the case for other hernia entities. Despite the complexity of this topic, documentation of RAD ± concomitant hernia has not proved to be any more cumbersome than for any of the other hernia entities when using this classification. CONCLUSION: Using the case report form described here, the complex hernia entity RAD ± concomitant hernia can be recorded in a registry for proper analysis of comparative treatment options.

What is the reality in epigastric hernia repair?-a trend analysis from the Herniamed Registry.

INTRODUCTION: The proportion of epigastric hernias in the total collective of all operated abdominal wall hernias is 3.6-6.9%. The recently published guidelines for treatment of epigastric hernias of the European Hernia Society and the Americas Hernia Society recommend the use of a mesh for defect size of ≥ 1 cm, i.e., a preperitoneal flat mesh technique for sizes 1-4 cm, and laparoscopic IPOM technique for defects > 4 cm and/or obesity. Against that background, this analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry now aims to explore trends in epigastric hernia repair. METHODS: To detect trends, the perioperative outcome was calculated separately for the years 2010 to 2019 and the 1-year follow-up for the years 2010 to 2018 and significant differences were identified. Analysis was based on 25,518 primary elective epigastric hernia repairs. The rates of postoperative surgical complications, pain at rest, pain on exertion, chronic pain requiring treatment and recurrence associated with the various surgical techniques were calculated separately for each year. Fisher's exact test for unadjusted analysis between years was applied with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing. RESULTS: The proportion of laparoscopic IPOM repairs declined from 26.0% in 2013 to 18.2% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Instead, the proportion of open sublay repairs rose from 16.5% to 21.8% (p < 0.001). That was also true for innovative techniques such as the EMILOS, MILOS, eTEP and preperitoneal flat mesh technique (8.3% vs 15.3%; p < 0.001). This change in indication for the various surgical techniques led to a significant improvement in the postoperative surgical complication rate (3.8% vs 1.9%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The trend is for epigastric hernia repair to be performed less often in laparoscopic IPOM technique and instead more often in open sublay technique or the new innovative techniques.

Differences in the outcomes of scrotal vs. lateral vs. medial inguinal hernias: a multivariable analysis of registry data.

INTRODUCTION: There are hardly any studies on the outcome of scrotal compared with medial and lateral inguinal hernias. Therefore, this present multivariable analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry compared the outcome of scrotal vs. lateral vs. medial inguinal hernias and explored the relationship between hernia localization and outcomes. METHODS: Included in the analysis were all primary elective unilateral inguinal hernias in men with scrotal, lateral or medial defect localization whose details had been entered into the Herniamed Registry by 712 participating institutions (status February 1, 2019). The relation of the hernia localization with the outcome parameters adjusted for pre-defined confounding patient- and procedure-related variables was analyzed via multivariable binary logistic models. RESULTS: Details of 98,321 patients were thus available for multivariable analysis. These related to 65,932 (67.1%) lateral, 29,697 (30.2%) medial and 2,710 (2.7%) scrotal inguinal hernias. Scrotal hernias were associated with higher patient age, higher BMI, higher ASA score, larger defect, more risk factors and more frequent use of Lichtenstein repair. On the other hand, scrotal hernias were associated less commonly with preoperative pain. Multivariable analysis revealed that scrotal hernias had a highly significantly unfavorable association with postoperative complications, complication-related reoperations and general complications. But scrotal hernias had a highly significantly favorable relation with the pain rates at 1-year follow-up. Medial hernias were the hernia type most often related with recurrence and also had an unfavorable association with the pain rates at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Scrotal inguinal hernias demonstrated a very unfavorable relation with the postoperative complication rate, the rate of complication-related reoperations and the rate of general complications. But a very favorable association with chronic pain rates was identified at 1-year follow-up. Medial inguinal hernia had an unfavorable relation with the recurrence and pain rates.

Do drains have an impact on the outcome after primary elective unilateral inguinal hernia repair in men?

INTRODUCTION: The use of drains continues to be a controversial topic in surgery. In a review of that topic for incisional hernia it was not possible to find sufficient evidence of the need for a drain. Likewise, for inguinal hernia surgery the data available are insufficient. METHODS: In a multivariable analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry for 98,321 patients with primary elective unilateral inguinal hernia repair in men, the role of a drain was investigated. RESULTS: A drain was used in 24.7% (n = 24,287/98,321) of patients. These patients were on average older, had higher BMI, longer operating time and received a smaller mesh. Drains were also used more often for patients with higher ASA score, risk factors, larger defects and scrotal hernia localization as well as for Lichtenstein, TEP and suture repair. The use of drains was highly significantly associated with intra- and postoperative complications as well as with complication-related reoperations. Hence, drains are used selectively in inguinal hernia repair for patients at higher risk of perioperative complications. Despite the use of drains, the outcome in this risk group is less favorable. It remains unclear if drains prevent further complications in high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Drains are used selectively in high-risk men with primary elective unilateral inguinal hernia repair. Drains are associated with intra- and postoperative complications rates and complication-related reoperation rate. Drains can serve as an indicator for early detection of complications.

What is the outcome of re-recurrent vs recurrent inguinal hernia repairs? An analysis of 16,206 patients from the Herniamed Registry.

INTRODUCTION: The proportion of recurrent repairs in the total collective of inguinal hernia repairs among men is 11.3-14.3% and among women 7.0-7.4%. The rate of re-recurrences is reported to be 2.9-9.2%. To date, no case series has been published on second and ≥ third recurrences and their treatment outcomes. Only case reports are available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry the perioperative and 1-year follow-up outcomes of 16,206 distinct patients who had undergone first recurrent (n = 14,172; 87.4%), second recurrent (n = 1,583; 9.8%) or ≥ third recurrent (n = 451; 2.8%) inguinal hernia repair between September 1, 2009 and July 1, 2017 were compared. RESULTS: The intraoperative complication rate for all recurrent repairs was between 1-2%. In the postoperative complications a continuous increase was observed (first recurrence: 3.97% vs second recurrence: 5.75% vs ≥ third recurrence 8.65%; p < 0.001). That applied equally to the complication-related reoperation rates (first recurrence: 1.50% vs second recurrence: 2.21% vs ≥ third recurrence 2.66; p = 0.020). Likewise, the re-recurrence rate rose significantly (first recurrence: 1.95% vs second recurrence: 2.72% vs ≥ third recurrence 3.77; p = 0.005). Similarly, the rate of pain requiring treatment rose highly significantly with an increasing number of recurrences (first recurrence: 5.21% vs second recurrence: 6.70% vs ≥ third recurrence 10.86; p = < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The repair of re-recurrences in inguinal hernia is associated with increasingly more unfavorable outcomes. For the first recurrence the guidelines should definitely be noted. For a second and ≥ third recurrence diagnostic laparoscopy may help to select the best possible surgical technique.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)): Part B.

In 2014 the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias". Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. METHODS: For the development of the original guidelines all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based-Medicine. For the present update all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne) the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. RESULTS: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite still insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initially guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Correction to: Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.

This article was updated to include the middle initial of author L. N. Jorgensen's name.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.

In 2014, the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias." Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. METHODS: For the development of the original guidelines, all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For the present update, all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne), the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. RESULTS: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques, it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initial guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION: Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations. METHODS: A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used. RESULTS: The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes. CONCLUSION: The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.

Laparo-endoscopic versus open recurrent inguinal hernia repair: should we follow the guidelines?

INTRODUCTION: On the basis of six meta-analyses, the guidelines of the European Hernia Society (EHS) recommend laparo-endoscopic recurrent repair following previous open inguinal hernia operation and, likewise, open repair following previous laparo-endoscopic operation. So far no data are available on implementation of the guidelines or for comparison of outcomes. Besides, there are no studies for comparison of outcomes for compliance versus non-compliance with the guidelines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 4812 patients with elective unilateral recurrent inguinal hernia repair in men were enrolled between September 1, 2009, and September 17, 2014, in the Herniamed Registry. Only patients with 1-year follow-up were included. RESULTS: Out of the 2482 laparo-endoscopic recurrent repair operations 90.5% of patients, and out of the 2330 open recurrent repair procedures only 38.5% of patients, were operated on in accordance with the guidelines of the EHS. Besides, on compliance with the guidelines multivariable analysis demonstrated for laparo-endoscopic recurrent repair a significantly lower risk of pain at rest (OR 0.643 [0.476; 0.868]; p = 0.004) and pain on exertion (OR 0.679 [0.537; 0.857]; p = 0.001). Comparison of laparo-endoscopic and open recurrent repair in settings of compliance versus non-compliance with the guidelines showed a higher incidence of perioperative complications and re-recurrences for recurrent repairs that did not comply with the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The EHS guidelines for recurrent inguinal hernia repair are not yet being observed to the extent required. Non-compliance with the guidelines is associated with higher perioperative complication rates and higher risk of re-recurrence. Even on compliance with the guidelines, the risk of pain at rest and pain on exertion is higher after open recurrent repair than after laparo-endoscopic repair.

Development of a standardized curriculum concept for continuing training in hernia surgery: German Hernia School.

INTRODUCTION: The increasingly more complex nature of hernia surgery means that training programs for young surgeons must now meet ever more stringent requirements. There is a growing demand for improved structuring and standardization of education and training in hernia surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2011, the concept of a Hernia School was developed in Germany and has been gradually implemented ever since. That concept comprises the following series of interrelated, tiered course elements: Hernie kompakt (Hernia compact), Hernie konkret (Hernia concrete), and Hernie complex (Hernia complex). All three course elements make provision for structured clinical training based on guest visits to approved hernia centers. The Hernia compact basic course imparts knowledge of anatomy working with fresh cadavers. Hernia surgery procedures can also be conducted using unfixed specimens. Knowledge of abdominal wall ultrasound diagnostics is also imparted and hernia surgery procedures simulated on pelvic trainers. In all three course elements, lectures are delivered by experts across the entire field of hernia surgery using evidence-based practices from the literature. RESULTS: To date, eight Hernie kompakt (Hernia compact) courses have been conducted, in each case with up to 55 participants, and with a total of 390 participants. On evaluating the course, over 95% of participants expressed the view that the Hernia compact course content improved hernia surgery training. Following that positive feedback, the more advanced Hernie konkret (Hernia concrete) and Hernie complex (Hernia complex) course elements were introduced in 2016. CONCLUSION: The experiences gained to date since the introduction of a Hernia School-a standardized curriculum concept for continuing training in hernia surgery-has been evaluated by participants as an improvement on hitherto hernia surgery training.

TEP versus Lichtenstein: Which technique is better for the repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernias in men?

INTRODUCTION: In the update of the guidelines of the European Hernia Society, open Lichtenstein and endoscopic techniques continue to be recommended as the surgical technique of choice for repair of unilateral primary inguinal hernias in men despite the fact that a meta-analysis had identified a higher recurrence rate for TEP compared with Lichtenstein operation. The Guidelines Group had taken that decision because one surgeon in one of the randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analysis had had a very high recurrence rate. Therefore, this study based on registry data now compares the outcome of TEP versus Lichtenstein repair. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analysis of the Herniamed Registry compares the prospective data collected for male patients undergoing primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair using either TEP or open Lichtenstein repair. Inclusion criteria were minimum age of 16 years, male patient, primary unilateral inguinal hernia, elective operation, and availability of data on 1-year follow-up. In total, 17,388 patients were enrolled between September 1, 2009, and August 31, 2013. Of these patients, 10,555 (60.70 %) had a Lichtenstein repair and 6833 (39.30 %) a TEP repair. RESULTS: On multivariable analysis, the surgical technique was not found to have had any significant effect on the recurrence rate (p = 0.146) or on the chronic pain rate (p = 0.560). Nor did the complication-related reoperation rates differ significantly between the two techniques (p = 0.084). But TEP was found to have benefits as regards the postoperative complication rate (p < 0.001), pain at rest rate (p = 0.011), and pain on exertion rate (p < 0.001). In the present registry study, no significant difference was identified in the recurrence rates between the TEP and Lichtenstein technique. TEP was found to have benefits compared with Lichtenstein repair as regards the postoperative complication rates, pain at rest, and pain on exertion.

Do we need antibiotic prophylaxis in endoscopic inguinal hernia repair? Results of the Herniamed Registry.

INTRODUCTION: The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in inguinal hernia repair is a controversial issue. Accepted randomized controlled trials or registry data with specific analysis of endoscopic repaired patients do not exist. PATIENT AND METHODS: The data presented in this study compared the prospectively collected data from the Herniamed Registry on all patients who had undergone unilateral, bilateral or recurrent repair of inguinal hernias using either endoscopic or open techniques between September 1, 2009, and March 5, 2014. In total, 85,033 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 48,201 (56.7 ) had an endoscopic and 36,832 (43.3%) an open repair. The target variables analyzed were impaired wound healing and deep infections with mesh involvement within 30 days after the operation. RESULTS: Analysis of the patient group with endoscopic/laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (n = 48,201) did not identify any significant influence of antibiotic prophylaxis on postoperative impaired wound healing, which occurred in 53 cases (p = 0.6431). Nor was it possible to identify any significant impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on the deep infections seen in 27 cases (p = 0.8409). Analysis of the open inguinal hernia repair group revealed that, unlike the laparoscopic/endoscopic group, antibiotic prophylaxis had a significant impact on the postoperative impaired wound healing and deep infection rates. The risk of postoperative impaired wound healing with antibiotic prophylaxis was significantly lower [OR 0.677 (0.479; 0.958), p = 0.027]. CONCLUSION: The positive impact of the endoscopic/laparoscopic technique on avoidance of impaired wound healing and deep infections with mesh involvement is already so great that antibiotic prophylaxis has no additional benefit. In contrast, antibiotic prophylaxis should be administered for open inguinal hernia repair.

Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)-part 1.

Guidelines are increasingly determining the decision process in day-to-day clinical work. Guidelines describe the current best possible standard in diagnostics and therapy. They should be developed by an international panel of experts, whereby alongside individual experience, above all, the results of comparative studies are decisive. According to the results of high-ranking scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, statements and recommendations are formulated, and these are graded strictly according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines can therefore be valuable in helping particularly the young surgeon in his or her day-to-day work to find the best decision for the patient when confronted with a wide and confusing range of options. However, even experienced surgeons benefit because by virtue of a heavy workload and commitment, they often find it difficult to keep up with the ever-increasing published literature. All guidelines require regular updating, usually every 3 years, in line with progress in the field. The current Guidelines focus on technique and perioperative management of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and constitute the first comprehensive guidelines on this topic. In this issue of Surgical Endoscopy, the first part of the Guidelines is published including sections on basics, indication for surgery, perioperative management, and key points of technique. The next part (Part 2) of the Guidelines will address complications and comparisons between open and laparoscopic techniques. Part 3 will cover mesh technology, hernia prophylaxis, technique-related issues, new technologic developments, lumbar and other unusual hernias, and training/education.