The compatibility of exoskeletons in perioperative environments and workflows: an analysis of surgical team members' perspectives and workflow simulation.

Surgical team members in perioperative environments experience high physical demands. Interventions such as exoskeletons, external wearable devices that support users, have the potential to reduce these work-related physical demands. However, barriers such as workplace environment and task compatibility may limit exoskeleton implementation. This study gathered the perspectives of 33 surgical team members: 12 surgeons, four surgical residents, seven operating room (OR) nurses, seven surgical technicians (STs), two central processing technicians (CPTs), and one infection control nurse to understand their workplace compatibility. Team members were introduced to passive exoskeletons via demonstrations, after which surgical staff (OR nurses, STs, and CPTs) were led through a simulated workflow walkthrough where they completed tasks representative of their workday. Five themes emerged from the interviews (workflow, user needs, hindrances, motivation for intervention, and acceptance) with unique subthemes for each population. Overall, exoskeletons were largely compatible with the duties and workflow of surgical team members.

The goal of this study was to identify exoskeleton compatibility across various surgical team members through a thematic analysis of interviews and a simulated workflow walkthrough. Results revealed five unique themes (workflow, user needs, hinderances, motivation for intervention, acceptance) and that exoskeletons were largely compatible with daily duties.

Understanding How Experts Do It: A Conceptual Framework for the Open Transversus Abdominis Release Procedure.

BACKGROUND: The safe and effective performance of a posterior component separation via a transversus abdominis release (TAR) requires intraoperative judgement and decision-making skills that are difficult to define, standardize, and teach. We herein present the first qualitative study which builds a framework upon which training and objective evaluation of a TAR can be based. METHODS: Hierarchical and cognitive task analyses for a TAR procedure were performed using semistructured interviews of hernia experts to describe the thoughts and behaviors that exemplify optimal performance. Verbal data was recorded, transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: A conceptual framework was synthesized based on literary sources (4 book chapters, 4 peer-reviewed articles, 3 online videos), 2 field observations, and interviews of 4 hernia experts [median 66 minutes (44-78)]. Subject matter experts practiced a median of 6.5 years (1.5-16) and have completed a median of 300 (60-500) TARs. After 5 rounds of inductive analysis, 80 subtasks, 86 potential errors, 36 cognitive behaviors, and 17 decision points were identified and categorized into 10 procedural steps (midline laparotomy, adhesiolysis, retrorectus dissection, etc.) and 9 fundamental principles: patient physiology and disease burden; tactical modification; tissue reconstruction and wound healing; task completion; choice of technique and instruments; safe planes and danger zones; exposure, ergonomics, environmental limitations; anticipation and forward planning; and tissue trauma and handling. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to define the key tasks, decisions, and cognitive behaviors that are essential to a successful TAR procedure.

Implementation of a Patient-Tailored Opioid Prescribing Guideline in Ventral Hernia Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Opioids are commonly prescribed beyond what is necessary to adequately manage postoperative pain, increasing the likelihood of chronic opioid use, pill diversion, and misuse. We sought to assess opioid utilization and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair (VHR) following the implementation of a patient-tailored opioid prescribing guideline. METHODS: A patient-tailored opioid prescribing guideline was implemented in March of 2018 for patients undergoing inpatient VHR in a large regional healthcare system. We retrospectively assessed opioid utilization and patient-reported outcomes among patients who did (n = 42) and did not receive guideline-based care (n = 121) between March 2018 and December 2019. PROs, operative details, and patient characteristics were extracted from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) registry data, and length-of-stay and prescription information were extracted from the electronic health record system at the healthcare institution. RESULTS: The milligram morphine equivalents (MME) prescribed at discharge was lower for patients receiving guideline-based care (Median = 65, interquartile range [IQR] = 50-75) than patients receiving standard care (Median = 100, IQR = 60-150). After adjusting for patient characteristics, the odds of receiving an opioid refill after discharge did not significantly differ between patient groups (P = 0.43). Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain scores and hernia-specific quality-of-life (HerQLes) scores at follow-up also did not differ between patients receiving guideline-based care (Mean PROMIS = 57.3; Mean HerQLes = 53.1) versus those that did not (Mean PROMIS = 56.7; Mean HerQLes = 46.6). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received tailored, guideline-based opioid prescriptions were discharged with lower opioid dosages and did not require more opioid refills than patients receiving standard opioid prescriptions. Additionally, we found no differences in pain or quality-of-life scores after discharge, indicating the opioids prescribed under the guideline were sufficient for patients.

Laparoscopic versus robotic inguinal hernia repair: 1- and 2-year outcomes from the RIVAL trial.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic inguinal hernia repair is growing in popularity among general surgeons despite little high-quality evidence supporting short- or long-term advantages over traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. The original RIVAL trial showed increased operative time, cost, and surgeon frustration for the robotic approach without advantages over laparoscopy. Here we report the 1- and 2-year outcomes of the trial. METHODS: This is a multi-center, patient-blinded, randomized clinical study conducted at six sites from 2016 to 2019, comparing laparoscopic versus robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair with follow-up at 1 and 2 years. Outcomes include pain (visual analog scale), neuropathic pain (Leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs pain scale), wound morbidity, composite hernia recurrence (patient-reported and clinical exam), health-related quality of life (36-item short-form health survey), and physical activity (physical activity assessment tool). RESULTS: Early trial participation included 102 patients; 83 (81%) completed 1-year follow-up (45 laparoscopic vs. 38 robotic) and 77 (75%) completed 2-year follow-up (43 laparoscopic vs. 34 robotic). At 1 and 2 years, pain was similar for both groups. No patients in either treatment arm experienced neuropathic pain. Health-related quality of life and physical activity were similar for both groups at 1 and 2 years. No long-term wound morbidity was seen for either repair type. At 2 years, there was no difference in hernia recurrence (1 laparoscopic vs. 1 robotic; P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repairs have similar long-term outcomes when performed by surgeons with experience in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs.

Effect of stapled versus layered skin closure on surgical site occurrences after abdominal wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The effect of skin closure technique on surgical site occurrences (SSO) after open abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) with retromuscular polypropylene mesh placement is largely unknown. We hypothesize that layered subcuticular skin closure with cyanoacrylate skin adhesive is protective of surgical site infection compared to standard stapled closure. METHODS: A retrospective review utilizing the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) database of all patients at Prisma Health-Upstate. All patients with open abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) of midline incisional hernia defects with retromuscular polypropylene mesh placement from January 2013 to February 2020 were included. Patient demographics, comorbidities, type of hernia repair with mesh location, method of skin closure, and SSOs were collected. Skin closure method was divided into two groups, reflecting a temporal change in practice: staples (historical control group) versus subcuticular suture with cyanoacrylate skin adhesive with/without polymer mesh tape (study group). Primary endpoint was SSI and SSO. Secondary endpoints were SSO or SSI requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI/SSIPI). Standard statistical methods were utilized. RESULTS: A total of 834 patients were analyzed, with 263 treated with stapled skin closure and 571 with subcuticular and adhesive closure. On univariate analysis, the incidence of SSI was significantly lower in the study group (11.8 vs 6.8%; p = 0.002), as was the need for SSIPI (11.8 vs 6.7%; p = 0.015). Rate of SSO was not significantly different between groups (28.1 vs 27.2%), but the rate of SSO requiring intervention was lower in the study group (14.1 vs 9.3%; p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Layered skin closure technique, including subcuticular closure and adhesive, may reduce the risk of surgical site infection after open AWR. A prospective randomized trial is planned to confirm these findings.

Reducing Length of Stay Using a Robotic-assisted Approach for Retromuscular Ventral Hernia Repair: A Comparative Analysis From the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare length of stay (LOS) after robotic-assisted and open retromuscular ventral hernia repair (RVHR). BACKGROUND: RVHR has traditionally been performed by open techniques. Robotic-assisted surgery enables surgeons to perform minimally invasive RVHR, but with unknown benefit. Using real-world evidence, this study compared LOS after open (o-RVHR) and robotic-assisted (r-RVHR) approach. METHODS: Multi-institutional data from patients undergoing elective RVHR in the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative between 2013 and 2016 were analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to compare median LOS between o-RVHR and r-RVHR groups. This work was supported by an unrestricted grant from Intuitive Surgical, and all clinical authors have declared direct or indirect relationships with Intuitive Surgical. RESULTS: In all, 333 patients met inclusion criteria for a 2:1 match performed on 111 r-RVHR patients using propensity scores, with 222 o-RVHR patients having similar characteristics as the robotic-assisted group. Median LOS [interquartile range (IQR)] was significantly decreased for r-RVHR patients [2 days (IQR 2)] compared with o-RVHR patients [3 days (IQR 3), P < 0.001]. No differences in 30-day readmissions or surgical site infections were observed. Higher surgical site occurrences were noted with r-RVHR, consisting mostly of seromas not requiring intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Using real-world evidence, a robotic-assisted approach to RVHR offers the clinical benefit of reduced postoperative LOS. Ongoing monitoring of this technique should be employed through continuous quality improvement to determine the long-term effect on hernia recurrence, complications, patient satisfaction, and overall cost.

Multicenter, Prospective, Longitudinal Study of the Recurrence, Surgical Site Infection, and Quality of Life After Contaminated Ventral Hernia Repair Using Biosynthetic Absorbable Mesh: The COBRA Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate biosynthetic absorbable mesh in single-staged contaminated (Centers for Disease Control class II and III) ventral hernia (CVH) repair over 24 months. BACKGROUND: CVH has an increased risk of postoperative infection. CVH repair with synthetic or biologic meshes has reported chronic biomaterial infections and high hernia recurrence rates. METHODS: Patients with a contaminated or clean-contaminated operative field and a hernia defect at least 9 cm had a biosynthetic mesh (open, sublay, retrorectus, or intraperitoneal) repair with fascial closure (n = 104). Endpoints included overall Kaplan-Meier estimates for hernia recurrence and postoperative wound infection rates at 24 months, and the EQ-5D and Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12). Analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat population, and health outcome measures evaluated using paired t tests. RESULTS: Patients had a mean age of 58 years, body mass index of 28 kg/m, 77% had contaminated wounds, and 84% completed 24-months follow-up. Concomitant procedures included fistula takedown (n = 24) or removal of infected previously placed mesh (n = 29). Hernia recurrence rate was 17% (n = 16). At the time of CVH repair, intraperitoneal placement of the biosynthetic mesh significantly increased the risk of recurrences (P ≤ 0.04). Surgical site infections (19/104) led to higher risk of recurrence (P < 0.01). Mean 24-month EQ-5D (index and visual analogue) and SF-12 physical component and mental scores improved from baseline (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective longitudinal study, biosynthetic absorbable mesh showed efficacy in terms of long-term recurrence and quality of life for CVH repair patients and offers an alternative to biologic and permanent synthetic meshes in these complex situations.

Standard laparoscopic versus robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) demonstrates comparable recurrence rates, but lower incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) than open repair. Delayed complications can occur with intraperitoneal mesh, particularly if a subsequent abdominal operation is required, potentially resulting in bowel injury. Robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair (RRVHR) allows abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) and extraperitoneal mesh placement previously only possible with open repair, with the wound morbidity of LVHR. METHODS: All LVHR and RRVHR performed in our institution between June 2013 and May 2015 contained in the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative database were analyzed. Continuous bivariate analysis was performed with Student's t test. Continuous nonparametric data were compared with Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact for small sample sizes. p values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: We compared 103 LVHR with 53 RRVHR. LVHR patients were older (60.2 vs. 52.9 years; p = 0.001), but demographics were otherwise similar between groups. Hernia width was similar (6.9 vs. 6.5 cm, p = 0.508). Fascial closure was achieved more often with RRVHR (96.2 vs. 50.5 %; p < 0.001) and aided by myofascial release in 43.4 %. Mesh was placed in an intraperitoneal position in 90.3 % of LVHR and extraperitoneal in 96.2 % of RRVHR. RRVHR operative time was longer (245 vs. 122 min, p < 0.001). Narcotic requirement was similar between LVHR and RRVHR (1.8 vs. 1.4 morphine equivalents/h; p = 0.176). Seroma was more common after RRVHR (47.2 vs. 16.5 %, p < 0.001), but SSI was similar (3.8 vs. 1 %, p = 0.592). Median length of stay was shorter after RRVHR (1 vs. 2 days, p = 0.004). Direct hospital cost was similar (LVHR $13,943 vs. RRVHR $19,532; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: RRVHR enables true AWR, with myofascial release to offset tension for midline fascial closure, and obviates the need for intraperitoneal mesh. Perioperative morbidity of RRVHR is comparable to LVHR, with shorter length of stay despite a longer operative time and extensive tissue dissection.

Risks of subsequent abdominal operations after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) with intraperitoneal mesh placement is well established; however, the fate of patients requiring future abdominal operations is not well understood. This study identifies the characteristics of LVHR patients undergoing reoperation and the sequelae of reoperation. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database at a hernia referral center identified patients who underwent LVHR between 2005 and 2014 and then underwent a subsequent abdominal operation. The outcomes of those reoperations were collected. Data are presented as a mean with ranges. RESULTS: A total of 733 patients underwent LVHR. The average age was 56.5 years, BMI 33.9 kg/m2, hernia size 115 cm2 (range 1-660 cm2), and mesh size 411 cm2 (range 17.7-1360 cm2). After a mean follow-up of 19.4 months, the overall hernia recurrence rate was 8.4 %. Subsequent abdominal operations were performed in 17 % (125 patients) at a mean 2.2 years. The most common indication for reoperation was recurrent hernia (33 patients, 26.4 %), followed by bowel obstruction (18 patients, 14.4 %), hepatopancreaticobiliary (17 patients, 13.6 %) and infected mesh removal (15 patients, 12 %), gynecologic (10 patients, 8 %), colorectal (8 patients, 6.4 %), bariatric (4 patients, 3 %), trauma (1 patient, 0.8 %), and other (19 patients, 15 %). The overall incidence of enterotomy or unplanned bowel resection (EBR) at reoperation was 4 %. This occurred exclusively in those reoperated for complete bowel obstruction, and the reason for EBR was mesh-bowel adhesions. No other indication for reoperation resulted in EBR. The incidence of secondary mesh infection after subsequent operation was 2.4 %. CONCLUSION: In a large consecutive series of LVHR, the rate of abdominal reoperation was 17 %. Generally, these reoperations can be performed safely. A reoperation for bowel obstruction, however, may carry an increased risk of EBR as a direct result of mesh-bowel adhesions. Secondary mesh infection after reoperation, although rare, may also occur. Surgeons should discuss with their patients the potential long-term implications of having an intraperitoneal mesh and how it may impact future abdominal surgery.

Results From Complex Abdominal Reconstruction at Non-Academic Institution can Favorably Compare to Major Academic Centers: An Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative Database Review.

BACKGROUND: Many complex abdominal hernias are referred to tertiary academic institutions for evaluation and treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes from complex abdominal hernia repairs and abdominal wall reconstructions at a community hospital vs high volume academic centers participating in Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC). METHODS: Patients undergoing elective complex abdominal hernia repair were identified in our community setting and treated between 2016 and 2019. These results were then compared to Academic centers in the ACHQC database. Complex hernia definition was limited to those who have undergone any myofascial advancement procedure for homogeneity. Informed consent was obtained, and study was IRB approved. All data was de-identified. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients underwent complex abdominal hernia repair at our community hospital. The ACHQC database identified 6299 patients meeting criteria at participating academic centers. Demographics were similar between the two groups including hernia grade, size and wound class. Academic centers tended to have patients with previous component separations (25.7% vs 10.6%) and immunosuppressed (7.2% vs 2.8%), while the community hospital patients included more patients with tobacco use (18.9% vs 12.1%) and hypertension (65% vs 54.9%). Operative times were significantly less at the community hospital, patients requiring >240 minutes of time for repair at academic centers (39.6% vs 5%). Postoperatively length of stay was significantly shorter at the community hospital group averaging 3.7 days vs academic centers of 6 days (P < .05). Although overall complications were less in the community hospital group (26.5% vs 19.4%). Readmission within 30 days was nearly twice as frequent in the community hospital group (14.4% vs 7.7%). CONCLUSION: Community hospitals can provide comparable care and surgical expertise as major academic centers in regard to complex hernias in a large majority of cases. There is a need for dedicated care coordination and continuous review of supporting staff and outcomes is necessary to assure quality care. There is still a need to identify which patients would benefit from treatment at an academic center as opposed to a community hospital in order to maximize patient access and outcomes at both types of hospital setting. Further investigation needs to be performed regarding criteria for which patients should be transferred to academic centers for their complex hernia care. Identifying patients who would benefit from treatment at Academic Centers as opposed to Community hospitals should continue to be investigated.

Use of Preoperative Endoscopic Capsule-Based pH Testing Before Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Vertical sleeve gastrectomy is the most performed bariatric operation in the US; however, a significant number of patients suffer from persistent or new-onset reflux. No consensus for objective preoperative evaluation in these patients exists. We compared capsule-based pH testing vs GERD symptom scoring to determine extent of preoperative GERD to aid in procedure selection for bariatric surgery. STUDY DESIGN: An IRB-approved retrospective review of consecutive patients at a single institution was performed from April 2021 to December 2022. During initial consultation for bariatric surgery, a validated GERD symptom subjective survey was administered. All patients demonstrating interest in sleeve gastrectomy or had a history of reflux underwent upper endoscopy with capsule-based pH testing. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients underwent preoperative endoscopy with capsule-based pH testing and completed GERD symptom assessment survey(s). Median BMI was 43.4 kg/m 2 and 66.1% of patients were not taking a proton-pump inhibitor before performance of pH testing. There was negligible linear association between the objective DeMeester score obtained by capsule-based pH probe and GERD symptom survey scores. Median GERD symptom survey scores did not differ between patients with and without a diagnosis of GERD based on pH testing (all p values >0.11). CONCLUSIONS: An objective method for identifying severe GERD in the preoperative assessment may aid in the decision tree for procedure selection and informed consent process. Patients with significant preoperative GERD may be at higher risk for future GERD-related sleeve complications. Capsule-based pH testing may prove to be superior to subjective symptom scoring systems in this patient population.

Reducing the incidence of surgical site infection after ventral hernia repair: Outcomes from the RINSE randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: The clinical and financial impact of surgical site infection after ventral hernia repair is significant. Here we investigate the impact of dual antibiotic irrigation on SSI after VHR. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective randomized control trial of open retromuscular VHR with mesh. Patients were randomized to gentamicin â€‹+ â€‹clindamycin (G â€‹+ â€‹C) (n â€‹= â€‹125) vs saline (n â€‹= â€‹125) irrigation at time of mesh placement. Primary outcome was 30-day SSI. RESULTS: No significant difference was seen in SSI between control and antibiotic irrigation (9.91 vs 9.09 â€‹%; p â€‹= â€‹0.836). No differences were seen in secondary outcomes: SSO (11.71 vs 13.64 â€‹%; p â€‹= â€‹0.667); 90-day SSO (11.1 vs 13.9 â€‹%; p â€‹= â€‹0.603); 90-day SSI (6.9 vs 3.8 â€‹%; p â€‹= â€‹0.389); SSIPI (7.21 vs 7.27 â€‹%, p â€‹= â€‹0.985); SSOPI (3.6 vs 3.64 â€‹%; p â€‹= â€‹0.990); 30-day readmission (9.91 vs 6.36 â€‹%; p â€‹= â€‹0.335); reoperation (5.41 vs 0.91 â€‹%; p â€‹= â€‹0.056). CONCLUSION: Dual antibiotic irrigation with G â€‹+ â€‹C did not reduce the risk of surgical site infection during open retromuscular ventral hernia repair.

Robotic transversus abdominis release: A paradigm shift in complex abdominal wall surgery?

Abdominal wall reconstruction techniques have evolved significantly over the last fifty years and continue to do so at an increasing pace. Beginning with open incisional hernia repair with bilateral rectus myofascial release, multiple techniques to offset tension at the midline by exploring options of layered myofascial release have been described. This article reviews the history, technique, advancements, and future of myofascial release in abdominal wall reconstruction leading from the open Rives-Stoppa repair to the robotic-assisted iteration of the transversus abdominis release.

Robotic repair of non-midline hernias.

Non-midline abdominal wall hernias present unique anatomic challenges, making repair more complex. The constraints of the peritoneal cavity, pelvis, and costal margin limit the utility of intraperitoneal mesh repair, and extra-peritoneal repairs have traditionally been performed using open techniques, often resulting in higher wound morbidity. Advances in minimally invasive surgery make visualization and dissection of such complex cases feasible, with all the attendant benefits of a minimally invasive over an open approach. In this study, we examined the use of the robotic platform to repair non-midline hernias. Retrospective review of all non-midline abdominal wall hernias was performed robotically at Prisma Health, excluding parastomal hernias. Study conducted and outcomes reported according to STROBE statement. Repair was performed in the retro-rectus (n = 3) or retro-rectus + transversus abdominis release (TAR) (n = 39), pre-peritoneal (n = 22), and intraperitoneal (n = 1). Mean hernia width was 9.4 cm, permanent synthetic mesh used for all repairs. Mean LOS was 1.5 days. Surgical-site occurrence (SSO) occurred in 49.2%, 78% of which were simple seroma. Three patients (4.6%) developed surgical-site infection (SSI). Two recurrences were identified with a mean follow-up of 11 mos. The robotic platform facilitates complex dissection to allow minimally invasive, extra-peritoneal repair of complex non-midline hernias. This approach overcomes the anatomic constraints of intraperitoneal mesh repair and the wound morbidity of open repair.

Rectus to defect ratio for estimating the complexity of ventral hernia repair: Is it reliable for robotic surgery?

INTRODUCTION: The rectus to defect ratio (RDR) has been previously described as a metric which enables surgeons to estimate the need to perform additional myofascial release (AMR), in addition to open Rives-Stoppa retro-muscular hernia repair. We sought to validate this measurement specifically for patients undergoing robotic totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) hernia repair. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 188 patients who underwent robotic ventral hernia repair via eTEP approach. RDR on preoperative CT was compared to the final operation rendered. The primary endpoint was the RDR's ability to predict the need for TAR to achieve fascial closure. RESULTS: Of 188 patients, 154 were repaired with rectus myofascial release, while 34 also required TAR. There was a linear decrease in the need for TAR with increasing RDR. RDR 1-1.49 (n â€‹= â€‹12) required TAR in 66.7 â€‹% of cases, RDR 1.5-1.99 (n â€‹= â€‹25) in 43.8 â€‹%, RDR 2-2.49 (n â€‹= â€‹31) in 29 â€‹%, and RDR >2.5 (n â€‹= â€‹151) in just 5.8 â€‹% CONCLUSION: The RDR accurately predicts the need for TAR to achieve fascial closure during robotic eTEP ventral hernia repair. An RDR >2.5 portends fascial closure without TAR 94.2 â€‹% of cases.

Outcomes of subsequent abdominal operations after an initial ventral hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: Nearly 20% of ventral hernia repair (VHR) patients require a subsequent abdominal operation (SAO), and mesh position may impact the complexity and outcome of the SAO. METHODS: Retrospective review of VHR with mesh from 2006 to 2020 from an internal database and the ACHQC. Primary outcomes measured incidence, complexity, and complications of SAO relative to mesh position. RESULTS: SAO was required in 433 of 2539 (17.1%) patients, totaling 671 operations; 197/893 (22.1%) with intraperitoneal mesh (IPM) and 236/1646 (14.3%) with extraperitoneal mesh (EPM; p â€‹< â€‹0.001). SAO was directly related to VHR in 180 (232 total SAOs) and unrelated in 253 (439 total SAOs). There were no significant differences in complications after SAO between IPM and EPM, nor any difference in adhesion complexity. CONCLUSION: Incidence of SAO is higher with IPM, but surgical outcomes are similar. Due to the risk of secondary mesh infection with IPM, significantly more of these were removed at the time of SAO.

Impact of methocarbamol on opioid use after ventral incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Alternatives to opioid analgesia are needed to reduce the risk of abuse, misuse, and diversion. Musculoskeletal pain is a significant contributor to postoperative pain after ventral hernia repair (VHR). We report the impact of methocarbamol on opioid prescribing after VHR. METHODS: Review of all robotic and open VHR, Jan 2020-July 2022. Data was collected in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) with additional chart review to assess for opioid refills. A 2:1 propensity score match was performed comparing opioid prescribing in patients prescribed vs not prescribed methocarbamol. RESULTS: 101 patients received methocarbamol compared with 202 without. Similar number of patients received an opioid prescription (87.1 vs 86.6%; p = 0.904). Study patients received significantly lower MME prescription at discharge (60 v 75; p = 0.021) with no difference in refills (12.5 vs 16.6%; p = 0.386). CONCLUSION: Addition of methocarbamol to a multimodal analgesic regimen after VHR facilitates reduction in prescribed opioid with no increase in refills.

Impact of methocarbamol on opioid use after primary ventral and inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia is now a mainstay of perioperative care. Our aim is to assess the impact of adding methocarbamol on opioid use for patients undergoing primary ventral (umbilical and epigastric) hernia repair (PVHR) and inguinal hernia repair (IHR). METHODS: Retrospective review of patients undergoing PVHR and IHR who received methocarbamol, propensity score matched in a 2:1 fashion to patients not receiving methocarbamol. RESULTS: Fifty-two PVHR patients receiving methocarbamol were matched to 104 control patients. Study patients were prescribed fewer opioids (55.8 vs 90.4%; p < 0.001) and received lower MME (20 vs 50; p < 0.001), with no difference in refills or rescue opioids. For IHR, study patients received fewer prescriptions (67.3 vs 87.5%; p < 0.001) and received lower MME (25 vs 40; p < 0.001), with no difference in rescue opioid (5.9 vs 0%; p = 0.374). CONCLUSIONS: Methocarbamol significantly reduced opioid prescribing in patients undergoing PVHR and IHR without increasing the risk of refill or rescue opioid.

A Standardized Protocol for Opioid Prescribing After Surgery Decreases Total Morphine Equivalents Prescribed.

INTRODUCTION: Perioperative opioid analgesia has been extensively reexamined during the opioid epidemic. Multiple studies have demonstrated over prescription of opioids, demonstrating the need for change in prescribing practices. A standard opioid prescribing protocol was implemented to evaluate opioid prescribing trends and practices. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate opioid use after primary ventral, inguinal, and incisional hernia repair and to assess clinical factors that may impact opioid prescribing and consumption. Secondary outcomes include the number of refills, patients without opioid requirement, difference in opioid use based on patient characteristics and adherence to prescribing protocol. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study examining patients undergoing inguinal, primary ventral and incisional hernias between February and November 2019. A standardized prescribing protocol was implemented and utilized for postoperative prescribing. All data was captured in the abdominal core health quality collaborative (ACHQC) and opioid use was standardized via morphine milligram equivalents (MME). RESULTS: 389 patients underwent primary ventral, incisional, and inguinal hernia repair, with a total of 285 included in the final analysis. 170 (59.6%) of patients reported zero opioid use postoperatively. Total opioid MME prescribed and high MME consumption were significantly higher after incisional hernia repair with a greater number of refills were required. Compliance with prescribing protocol resulted in lower MME prescription, but not actual lower MME consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a standardized protocol for opioid prescribing after surgery decreases the total MME prescribed. Compliance with our protocol significantly reduced this disparity, which has the potential for decreasing abuse, misuse, and diversion of opioids by better estimating actual postoperative analgesic requirements.

One and done? Repair of recurrent hernias after prior Myofascial release.

BACKGROUND: Myofascial release (MFR) techniques, including retromuscular hernia repair, are often considered one-time repairs. We report recurrent ventral hernia repair (RVHR) in patients with prior MFR, focusing on redo-RM repair. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing RVHR after prior MFR. Primary outcomes were operative time, surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), and 20-month recurrence. RESULTS: 111 RVHR were performed after MFR. For patients with prior external oblique release (EOR, n = 31), transversus abdominis release (TAR) was used for repair in 13. For patients with prior TAR/PCS (posterior component separation) (n = 22), EOR (n = 2) and redo-TAR (n = 3) were employed with comparable results. Prior retromuscular (RM) repair was performed in 92 patients. Redo-RM (n = 32) and intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM; n = 38) were most common. Operative time was longer for redo-RM. SSI (12.5 vs 7.9%), SSO (40.1 vs 39.5%), and recurrence (18.8 vs 16.2%) were similar for redo-RM and IPOM repair. CONCLUSION: RVHR after prior MFR does not preclude additional MFR. Redo-RM VHR outcomes are similar to those repaired with other techniques.