Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for Prevention of Midline Incisional Hernias: A Publication Bias Adjusted Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature on the use of prophylactic mesh reinforcement of midline laparotomy closures for prevention of VIH. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: VIH are common complications of abdominal surgery. Prophylactic mesh has been proposed as an adjunct to prevent their occurrence. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane were reviewed for RCTs that compared prophylactic mesh reinforcement versus conventional suture closure of midline abdominal surgery. Primary outcome was the incidence of VIH at postoperative follow-up ≥24 months. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection and surgical site occurrence (SSO). Pooled risk ratios were obtained through random effect meta-analyses and adjusted for publication bias. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare mesh types and locations. RESULTS: Of 1969 screened articles, 12 RCTs were included. On meta-analysis there was a lower incidence of VIH with prophylactic mesh [11.1% vs 21.3%, Relative risk (RR) = 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.19-0.55, P < 0.001), however, publication bias was highly likely. When adjusted for this bias, prophylactic mesh had a more conservative effect (RR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.39-0.70). There was no difference in risk of surgical site infection (9.1% vs 8.9%, RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.82-1.43; P = 0.118), however, prophylactic mesh increased the risk of SSO (14.2% vs 8.9%, RR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.19-2.05; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Current RCTs suggest that in mid-term follow-up prophylactic mesh prevents VIH with increased risk for SSO. There is limited long-term data and substantial publication bias.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: Two-Year Results From a Prospective, Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Report the 2-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing robotic versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh ventral hernia repair. BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons. To our knowledge, no studies have been published to date comparing long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral hernia repair. METHODS: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03490266). Clinical outcomes included surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, hernia occurrence, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 175 consecutive patients were approached that were deemed eligible for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. In all, 124 were randomized and 101 completed follow-up at 2 years. Two-year follow-up was completed in 54 patients (83%) in the robotic arm and 47 patients (80%) in the laparoscopic arm. No differences were seen in surgical site infection or surgical site occurrence. Hernia recurrence occurred in 2 patients (4%) receiving robotic repair versus in 6 patients (13%) receiving laparoscopic repair (relative risk: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.06-1.39; P =0.12). No patients (0%) required reoperation in the robotic arm whereas 5 patients (11%) underwent reoperation in the laparoscopic arm ( P =0.019, relative risk not calculatable due to null outcome). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic ventral hernia repair demonstrated at least similar if not improved outcomes at 2 years compared with laparoscopy. There is potential benefit with robotic repair; however, additional multi-center trials and longer follow-up are needed to validate the hypothesis-generating findings of this study.

Two-year Outcomes of Prehabilitation Among Obese Patients With Ventral Hernias: A Randomized Controlled Trial (NCT02365194).

OBJECTIVE: To determine if preoperative nutritional counseling and exercise (prehabilitation) improve outcomes in obese patients seeking ventral hernia repair (VHR)? SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Obesity and poor fitness are associated with complications following VHR. It is unknown if preoperative prehabilitation improves outcomes of obese patients seeking VHR. METHODS: This is the 2-year follow-up of a blinded randomized controlled trial from 2015 to 2017 at a safety-net academic institution. Obese patients (BMI 30-40) seeking VHR were randomized to prehabilitation versus standard counseling. Elective VHR was performed once preoperative requirements were met: 7% total body weight loss or 6 months of counseling and no weight gain. Primary outcome was percentage of hernia-free and complication-free patients at 2 years. Complications included recurrence, reoperation, and mesh complications. Primary outcome was compared using chi-square. We hypothesize that prehabilitation in obese patients with VHR results in more hernia- and complication-free patients at 2-years. RESULTS: Of the 118 randomized patients, 108 (91.5%) completed a median (range) follow-up of 27.3 (6.2-37.4) months. Baseline BMI (mean±SD) was similar between groups (36.8 ±â€Š2.6 vs 37.0 ±â€Š2.6). More patients in the prehabilitation group underwent emergency surgery (5 vs 1) or dropped out of the program (3 vs 1) compared to standard counseling (13.6% vs 3.4%, P = 0.094). Among patients who underwent surgery, there was no difference in major complications (10.2% vs 9.1%, P = 0.438). At 2-years, there was no difference in percentage of hernia-free and complication-free patients (72.9% vs 66.1%, P = 0.424, 1.14, 0.88-1.47). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in 2-year outcomes of obese patients seeking VHR who undergo prehabilitation versus standard care. Prehabilitation may not be warranted in obese patients undergoing elective VHR.Clinical Trial Registration: This trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02365194).

Reproducing Statistics Performed in Published Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) represent evidence at the lowest potential risk for bias. Clinicians in all specialties depend upon RCTs to guide patient care. Issues such as statistical discordance, or reporting statistical results that cannot be reproduced, should be uncommon. Our aim was to confirm the statistical reproducibility of published RCTs. METHODS: PubMed was searched using "randomized controlled trial." Studies were selected using a random number generator. Studies were included if the primary outcome could be reproduced using the data and statistical test reported in the manuscript. The reproduced p-value from our analysis and the published p-value were compared. Primary outcome was the number of studies that reported p-values that differed in statistical significance (crossed p-value=0.05) from the reproduction analysis. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, a beta of 0.80, an estimated rate of statistical discordance of 5% for RCTs, a total of at least 568 studies were required. RESULTS: Overall, 572 RCTs were selected involving six specialties. Of these, 45% were positive (p<0.05) studies. Eleven (2%) published results that differed from the reproduction analysis and crossed the p=0.05 threshold. All 11 studies were positive studies (while the reproduction analysis demonstrated p≥0.05). CONCLUSION: Less than 5% of published RCTs reported a discordant p-value that crossed the "p=0.05" threshold. Although the occurrence is uncommon, the existence of even one RCT publishing nonreproducible results is concerning. Future studies should seek to identify why some RCTs report discordant statistics and how to prevent this from occurring.

The Evidence Behind Robot-Assisted Abdominopelvic Surgery : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Use of robot-assisted surgery has increased dramatically since its advent in the 1980s, and nearly all surgical subspecialties have adopted it. However, whether it has advantages compared with laparoscopy or open surgery is unknown. PURPOSE: To assess the quality of evidence and outcomes of robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopy and open surgery in adults. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials that compared robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery with laparoscopy, open surgery, or both. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted study data and risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 50 studies with 4898 patients were included. Of the 39 studies that reported incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications, 4 (10%) showed fewer complications with robot-assisted surgery. The majority of studies showed no difference in intraoperative complications, conversion rates, and long-term outcomes. Overall, robot-assisted surgery had longer operative duration than laparoscopy, but no obvious difference was seen versus open surgery. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity was present among and within the included surgical subspecialties, which precluded meta-analysis. Several trials may not have been powered to assess relevant differences in outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is currently no clear advantage with existing robotic platforms, which are costly and increase operative duration. With refinement, competition, and cost reduction, future versions have the potential to improve clinical outcomes without the existing disadvantages. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42020182027).

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: One-year Results From a Prospective, Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) at 1-year postoperative. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite a relative lack of research at low risk for bias assessing robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR), the growth of RVHR has been rapid. We previously reported short-term results of the first randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR; there was no clear difference in clinical outcomes but increased operative time and cost with robotic repair. METHODS: Patients from a multicenter, blinded randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR were followed at 1 year. Outcomes included wound complication (surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, wound dehiscence), hernia occurrence including recurrence and port site hernia, readmission, reoperation, and patient-reported outcomes (functional status, pain, and satisfaction with repair and cosmesis). RESULTS: A total of 124 patients were randomized and 113 patients (91%; 60 robot, 53 laparoscopic) completed 1-year follow-up. Baseline demographics were similar in both groups. No differences were seen in wound complication (15% vs 15%; P = 0.899), hernia recurrence (7% vs 9%; P = 0.576), or readmission (2% vs 6%; P = 0.251). No patients underwent reoperation in the robotic arm, whereas 5 (9%) did in the laparoscopic arm (P = 0.020). No differences were seen in patient-reported outcomes. Both arms reported clinically significant improvements in functional status, low pain scores, and high satisfaction scores at 1-year post repair. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that robotic ventral hernia repair is safe when compared to laparoscopy. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Is robotic surgery feasible at a safety net hospital?

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery offers potential advantages of improved ability to complete procedures using a minimally invasive approach, recovery, and clinical outcomes. It has been previously established that safety net hospitals are outliers for surgical complications. As such, the adoption of new technology may not achieve the same outcomes as other institutions. We hypothesized that, compared to laparoscopic and open surgeries, robotic surgeries have fewer post-operative Clavien-Dindo complications at our safety net hospital. METHODS: All robotic surgeries performed from 2017 to 2019 at a single, safety net hospital were reviewed. Cases were matched 1:3 to laparoscopic controls. Surgeries commonly performed open were additionally matched 1:3 to open counterparts. The primary outcome was Clavien-Dindo complications at 90 days post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included inadvertent enterotomy, conversion to open, operative duration, wound class, surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), length of stay (LOS), reoperation, readmission, and recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 160 robotic surgeries were included and matched to 480 laparoscopic surgeries and 108 open surgeries. Open surgeries were associated with greater risk of Clavien-Dindo complication (OR = 2.7, p = 0.040, 95% confidence interval 1.0-6.9) than either robotic or laparoscopic surgeries. Robotic cases had increased operative duration when compared to laparoscopic (p < 0.001) but not open cases (p = 0.093). No difference was seen in enterotomy, conversion to open, SSI, SSO, LOS, reoperation, readmission, or recurrence between robotic and laparoscopic, and robotic and open cases. CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible at a safety net hospital. Robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were associated with fewer Clavien-Dindo complications than open surgery, but no differences were seen between robotic and laparoscopic cases. Robotic surgery, compared to both laparoscopic and open surgery, had longer operative durations. Further studies are needed to assess the value of robotic as opposed to laparoscopic surgery in a safety net setting.

Port Site Hernias Following Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair.

BACKGROUND: Port site hernias (PSH) are underreported following laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR). Most occur at the site of laterally placed 10-12-mm ports used to introduce large pieces of mesh. One alternative is to place the large port through the ventral hernia defect; however, there is potential for increased risk of surgical site infection (SSI). This study evaluates the outcomes when introducing mesh through a 10-12-mm port placed through the hernia defect. METHODS: This was a retrospective case series of patients who underwent LVHR in three prospective trials from 2014-2017 at one institution. All patients had mesh introduced through a 10-12-mm port placed through the ventral hernia defect. The primary outcome was SSI. Secondary outcomes were hernia occurrences including recurrences and PSH. RESULTS: A total of 315 eligible patients underwent LVHR with a median (range) follow-up of 21 (11-41) months. Many patients were obese (66.9%), recently quit tobacco use (8.8%), or had diabetes (18.9%). Most patients had an incisional hernia (61.2%), and 19.2% were recurrent. Hernias were on average 4.8 ± 3.8 cm in width. Two patients (0.6%) had an SSI. Fourteen patients had a hernia occurrence-13 (4.4%) had a recurrent hernia, and one patient (0.3%) had a PSH. CONCLUSION: During LVHR, introduction of mesh through a 10-12-mm port placed through the hernia defect is associated with a low risk of SSI and low risk of hernia occurrence. While further studies are needed to confirm these results, mesh can be safely introduced through a port through the defect.

Biologic Versus Synthetic Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair: Participant-Level Analysis of Two Randomized Controlled Trials at Twenty-Four to Thirty-Six Months.

Background: Biologic mesh has been used increasingly in complex ventral hernia repair despite limited evidence at low risk of bias supporting its use. Patients and Methods: We performed a participant-level analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing biologic to synthetic mesh with complex ventral hernia repair at 24 to 36 months. Primary outcome was major complication (composite of mesh infection, recurrence, reoperation, or death) at 24 to 36 months post-operative. Secondary outcomes included length of index hospital stay, surgical site occurrence, surgical site infection, and death. Outcomes were assessed using both frequentist and Bayesian generalized linear regression models. Results: A total of 252 patients from two RCTs were included, 126 patients randomized to the intervention arm of biologic and 126 patients to the control of synthetic mesh with median follow-up of 29 (23, 38) months. Major complication occurred in 33 (33%) patients randomized to biologic, and 39 (38%) patients randomized to synthetic mesh, (relative risk [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.31; p value = 0.600). Bayesian analysis demonstrated that compared with synthetic mesh, biologic mesh had similar probability of major complications at 24 to 36 months post-operative. The remainder of outcomes demonstrated slight benefit with synthetic mesh as opposed to biologic mesh except for mesh infection. However, under a frequentist framework, no outcome was statistically different. Conclusions: In patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair, there was no benefit for patients receiving biologic versus synthetic mesh at 24 to 36 months post-operative.

Hernia Prevention Using Biologic Mesh and/or Small Bites: A Multispecialty 2 × 2 Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ventral incisional hernias are the most common complication after abdominal operation. Randomized trials have shown efficacy of prophylactic synthetic mesh and small bites. Adoption of these practices has been limited due to concerns with placement of synthetic mesh in contaminated cases and small bites in an overweight population. We sought to assess the efficacy of prophylactic biologic mesh and small bites to prevent postoperative major complications: ventral incisional hernias, surgical site infection, reoperation, and death. STUDY DESIGN: High-risk patients (overweight/obese, current smoker) undergoing abdominal operation with a midline incision (5 cm or greater) were randomized (2 × 2 factorial trial) to receive either sublay biologic mesh or no mesh and either small bites (0.5 × 0. 5cm) or large bites (1 × 1 cm) fascial closure. The primary outcome measure was major complications at 1 year postoperative. CONSORT guidelines were followed, and this study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03148496). Assuming α = 0.05, ß = 0.20, and Δ = 20%, it was estimated that 105 patients were needed. Primary outcome was assessed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were randomized: 52 (49%) to mesh, 55 (51%) to no mesh, 55 (51%) to small bites, and 52 (49%) to large bites. Of the patients, 16% were smokers, 31% were overweight, and 55% were obese. At 1 year postoperative, there were no differences in major complications between groups (mesh vs no mesh 21% vs 16%, p = 0.62; small vs large bites 18% vs 19%, p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, biologic mesh and small bites appear to have no benefit. Further randomized trials are needed among high-risk patients before widespread adoption of prophylactic biologic mesh or small bites.

Systematic Review of Treatment of Patients with Achalasia: Heller Myotomy, Pneumatic Dilation, and Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review is to assess all comparative randomized controlled trials evaluating Heller myotomy, pneumatic dilation, and peroral endoscopic myotomy. STUDY DESIGN: Achalasia is an esophageal motility disorder associated with degeneration of the myenteric plexus; it causes significant symptoms and impacts patient quality of life (QOL). The optimal treatment for patients with achalasia and the impact of these interventions on QOL remain unclear. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane were searched from inception to April 2020. Randomized controlled trials that compared the 3 interventions were included. Primary outcome was QOL at 12 to 36 months after the operation. Secondary outcomes included reintervention, dysphagia, leak/perforation, and GERD recurrence. RESULTS: Nine publications of 6 studies were included. Of the 9 publications, there was no significant difference in QOL at 12 to 36 months except for one study in which QOL was significantly higher in patients who underwent Heller myotomy as opposed to pneumatic dilation at 3 years; however, at 5 years there was no difference. Pneumatic dilation was associated with the highest rates of dysphagia recurrence and reintervention, but peroral endoscopic myotomy had the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of achalasia should be chosen in accordance with patient goals. After any of the 3 interventions, QOL appears to be similar. However, peroral endoscopic myotomy may be associated with the lowest rates of perforation/leak, dysphagia, and reintervention and may be the lowest risk option. However, there are barriers to widespread use due to challenges in training and adoption.

Poor Oral Health in Trauma Intensive Care Unit Patients: Application of a Novel Oral Health Score.

Background: Although oral hygiene in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been shown to reduce hospital-associated infections, baseline and progressive oral health are often not reported because of lack of a standardized tool. The Oral Health Risk Assessment Value Index (OHRAVI) is a comprehensive oral assessment validated by dental providers. This study hypothesizes that non-dental providers can use OHRAVI in trauma ICU patients with minimal training and acceptable inter-rater reliability (IRR). Patients and Methods: Dentulous adult patients in the ICU at a level 1 trauma center were scored, excluding those with severe orofacial trauma. The eight categories of the OHRAVI were scored 0 to 3 (best to worst) with summed total and index (average) score. Index scores 1 or less need routine oral care; greater than 1-2 require moderate care; and greater than 2-3 require extensive oromaxillofacial care. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by two to three raters with Krippendorff's α (≥0.80 for good and ≥0.667 for acceptable). Results: Eighty-four ratings were completed across 34 patients, with 16 patients (47%) scored by all three raters. Ten patients (29%) had an index score <1. The average index score for patients was 1.28 (median, 1.34; range, 0.63-2). Krippendorff's α for index score was 0.86. For individual categories, α ranged from 0.44 to 1, with six of the eight categories achieving an α ≥ 0.667. Conclusions: With minimal training, non-dental providers were able to use OHRAVI with a good IRR for index score and an acceptable/good IRR for most individual categories. This novel, simple, comprehensive oral health score could help standardize oral assessment and facilitate future studies of peri-operative oral hygiene interventions.

Fascial Defect Closure During Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: During minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) it is unknown if a fascial defect closure, as opposed to a bridged repair (current care), is beneficial for patients. We sought to systematically review the published literature on the role of fascial defect closure during minimally invasive VHR. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov were reviewed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fascial defect closure with bridged repair. The primary outcome was major complications defined as deep/organ-space surgical site infections (SSIs), reoperations, hernia recurrences, or deaths. Secondary outcomes included SSI, seroma, eventration, hernia recurrence, post-operative pain, and quality of life (QOL). Pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were obtained through random effect meta-analyses. Results: Of 579 screened articles, 6 publications of 5 RCTs were included. No significant difference in major complications (10.6% vs 10.4%, RR=1.05, 95% CI=0.51-2.14, P=.90) or recurrences (9.0% vs 10.6%, RR=0.92, 95% CI=0.32-2.61, P=.87) were found between groups. Fascial defect closure decreased the risk of seromas (22.9% vs 34.2%, RR=0.60, 95% CI=0.37-0.97, P=.04) and may decrease the risk of eventrations (6.7% vs 9.0%, RR=0.74, 95% CI=0.37-1.50, P=.41) at the expense of potentially increasing the risk of SSI (3.2% vs 1.4%, RR=1.89, 95% CI=0.60-5.93; P=.28). Reporting of pain and QOL scores was inconsistent. Conclusion: While most individual RCTs demonstrated benefit with fascial defect closure during minimally invasive VHR, our meta-analysis of fascial defect closure demonstrated only a statistically significant difference in seromas compared to bridged repair. Large, multi-center RCTs are needed.

Expert Consensus for Key Features of Operative Reports of Ventral Hernia.

BACKGROUND: Operative reports are important documents; however, standards for critical elements of operative reports are general and often vague. Hernia surgery is one of the most common procedures performed by general surgeons, so the aim of this project was to develop a Delphi consensus on critical elements of a ventral hernia repair operative report. STUDY DESIGN: The Delphi method was used to establish consensus on key features of operative reports for ventral hernia repair. An expert panel was selected and questionnaires were distributed. The first round of voting was open-ended to allow participants to recommend what details should be included. For the second round the questionnaire was distributed with the items that did not have unanimous responses along with free text comments from the first round. RESULTS: Eighteen surgeons were approached, of which 11 completed both rounds. Twenty items were on the initial questionnaire, of which 11 had 100% agreement. Of the remaining 9 items, after the second questionnaire an additional 7 reached consensus. CONCLUSION: Ventral hernia repairs are a common and challenging problem and often require reoperations. Surgeons frequently refer to previous operative notes to guide future procedures, which requires detailed and comprehensive operative reports. This Delphi consensus was able to identify key components needed for an operative report describing ventral hernia repair.

Randomized controlled trials published on patients with hernias have a high percentage of unreproducible statistics.

INTRODUCTION: Surgeons rely on randomized controlled trials (RCT) to compare the effectiveness of treatments. RCTs require careful planning and substantial effort to complete. Because of the careful study design, statistics performed are often easy to reproduce such as Chi-squared or t-test. Issues such as statistical discordance, or reporting statistical results that cannot be reproduced, should be uncommon. METHODS: RCTs pertaining to hernias were identified in PubMed using the search terms "hernia" and "randomized controlled trial." Studies were selected using a random number generator. Studies were included if the primary outcome could be reproduced using the data and statistical test reported in the manuscript. Discordance between the obtained p-value from our analysis and the published p-value was assessed. Primary outcome was the number of studies that reported p-values that crossed the level of statistical significance (p-value = 0.05) but on reproduction analysis did not. RESULTS: Of the 100 included RCTs, five reported p-values that crossed the "p = 0.05" threshold that our team was unable to reproduce using the statistical test reported in the manuscript. An additional three studies reported p-values that crossed the "p = 0.05" threshold that our team was unable to reproduce using the appropriate statistical test (i.e., Fisher's exact test when all expected cell counts < 5). All eight studies published p-values < 0.05, whereas, our re-analysis demonstrated p ≥ 0.05. CONCLUSION: Eight percent of the RCTs analyzed in this study reported p-values < 0.05 that on reproduction analysis was ≥ 0.05. The next steps should be to determine reasons for discordance and how to prevent this from happening.

Is expectant management warranted in patients with ventral hernias and co-morbidities? A prospective, 5 year follow-up, patient-centered study.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to report the natural history of operative versus expectant management of patients with ventral hernias and co-morbidities at five years. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study. Patients were managed with elective repair or expectantly, based on co-morbidities and patient/surgeon choice. Primary outcome was functional status. Patients were matched using optimal matching. Outcomes were compared using multivariable regression. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients were included (78 operative, 119 expectant) with median follow-up of 5.1 (3.2-5.5) years. In the matched-cohort (n = 80), 58 vs 68% were obese, and 88% vs 95% had a major comorbidity. Both groups had similar baseline functional status (p = 0.788), but only those repaired initially had significantly improved scores at five years (p < 0.050). Half (20) of patients managed expectantly crossed over to repair, and 15% (3) were emergent/urgent. CONCLUSION: Initial repair improves long-term functional status significantly compared to expectant management. Repair by hernia experts should be considered for high-risk patients.

Patient quality of life before and after ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence is often reported as the primary outcome among studies of patients with hernias; however, there is growing interest in patient quality of life. The relationship between quality of life and recurrence is poorly understood. This study evaluates this relationship. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 3 prospective clinical trials was performed. The modified Activities Assessment Scale, a validated, abdominal wall-specific quality of life tool was used (1 = poor quality of life and 100 = perfect quality of life). Patients with and without a hernia recurrence were compared. Baseline quality of life, follow-up quality of life, and change in quality of life were measured. The relationship between quality of life and clinical outcomes was examined. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients were followed for median (range) 30 (14-44) months, of whom 31 (13.0%) had a clinical recurrence, whereas 207 (87.0%) had no clinical recurrence. Patients with recurrence were more likely to have a lower mean baseline quality of life (14 vs 26; P = .035), follow-up quality of life (42 vs 82; P < .001), and change in quality of life (19 vs 33; P < .018). The majority of patients with or without recurrence still experienced an improvement in quality of life (68% vs 79%; P = .142). CONCLUSION: Patients with lower baseline quality of life are likely to experience a recurrence following repair; however, most still report substantial improvements in quality of life. Assessing follow-up quality of life without accounting for baseline quality of life is incomplete; follow-up quality of life should be assessed with appropriate adjustment for baseline quality of life.

Synthetic versus Biologic Mesh for Complex Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Many surgeons utilize biologic mesh for elective complex ventral hernia repair (VHR; large hernias, contaminated fields, or patients with comorbid conditions). However, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared biologic and synthetic mesh. We hypothesize biologic mesh would result in fewer major complications at one-year post-operative compared with synthetic mesh. Patients and Methods: We performed a single-center, pilot RCT. All eligible patients undergoing complex, open VHR were randomly assigned to receive biologic or synthetic mesh placed in the retromuscular position. Primary outcome was major complications, namely, a composite of mesh infection, recurrence, or re-operation at one-year post-operative. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infections (SSI), seromas, hematomas, wound dehiscence, re-admissions, and Clavien-Dindo complication grade. Outcomes were assessed using Fisher exact test and Bayesian generalized linear models. Results: Of 87 patients, 44 were randomly assigned to biologic mesh and 43 to synthetic mesh. Most cases were wound class 2-4 (68%) and 75% had a hernia width >4 cm. Most patients were obese (70%) and had an American Society of Anesthesiogists (ASA) score of 3-4 (53%). Compared with patients in the synthetic mesh group, patients in the biologic mesh group had a higher percentage of: major complications at one-year post-operative (42.4% vs. 21.6%; relative risk [RR] = 1.96 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.94-4.08]; number needed to harm = 4.8; p = 0.071); SSI (15.9% vs. 9.3%; RR = 1.71 [95% CI = 0.54-5.42]; p = 0.362); wound dehiscence (25.0% vs. 14.0%; RR = 1.79 [95% CI = 0.73-4.41]; p = 0.205); and re-admissions (22.7% vs 9.3%; RR = 2.44 [95% CI = 0.83-7.20]; p = 0.105). Bayesian analysis demonstrated that compared with synthetic mesh, biologic mesh had a 95% probability of increased risk of major complications at one-year post-operative. No clear evidence of a difference was found on seromas, hematomas, or Clavien-Dindo complication grade. Conclusions: In elective complex open VHR, biologic mesh demonstrated no benefit compared with synthetic mesh in one-year outcomes. Moreover, Bayesian analysis suggests that biologic mesh may have an increased probability of major complications.

Current surgeon practices for postoperative activity restrictions after abdominal surgery vary widely: A survey from the communities on the ACS website.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons often impose restrictions on patient activities after an abdominal operation in an effort to prevent complications such as incisional hernia. This study addresses the current recommendations concerning the restriction of activities given by a diverse group of surgeons to their patients after abdominal surgery. METHODS: A 14-item survey was posted on surgeon-specific social media platforms, primarily the American College of Surgeons Communities. This survey included questions about demographics, practice type, and activity recommendations after open and minimally invasive abdominal surgery. Descriptive, multivariable, and qualitative analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 420 surgeons completed the survey. The majority of respondents identified as general surgeons (76.2%). Practice types included private (37.6%), academic (34.3%), underserved (10.1%), and Veterans Affairs (5.6%). After an open laparotomy, the majority of respondents (53.1%) recommended that patients refrain from heavy lifting or strenuous activity for 6 weeks. For a minimally invasive abdominal operation, recommendations were even more variable, restricting activity for 2 weeks (34.4%), 4 weeks (23.8%), 6 weeks (15.5%), or no restrictions (12.6%). On average, participating surgeons recommended an earlier return to activity by 2.3 weeks for patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery compared with an open operation (95% confidence interval 2.1-2.5, P < .001). Qualitative analysis provided additional information regarding surgeons' rationale for decision making. Only 23.8% of the respondents indicated that their recommendations were based on evidence in literature. CONCLUSION: This survey on surgeon recommendations for convalescence after an abdominal operation indicates the wide variation in practices with insufficient evidence to guide decision making. Future clinical trials examining various durations and intensities of postoperative restrictions will be important to determine a safe and patient-centered approach for recovery after an abdominal operation.