Establishing Peer Consensus About the Use of Long-Term Biosynthetic Absorbable Mesh for Hernia (Grades 2-3) as the Standard of Care.

BACKGROUND: Standard synthetic and biologic meshes, often used in hernia repair, have commonly been used and each have their strengths but associated drawbacks. Long-term biosynthetic absorbable (LTBA) mesh has been developed to combine the strengths of synthetic and biologic meshes without the associated weaknesses. As a newer type of mesh, the supporting evidence base is still growing, and their optimum use has yet to be defined. This consensus was initiated to provide insight into those situations where a LTBA might be considered the Standard of Care in ventral hernia repair grades 2-3 (original classification, 2010) of the Ventral Hernia Working Group. METHODS: A steering group of expert surgeons identified 35 statements, based around the evidence supporting LTBA, surgical technique, patients type most suitable for LTBA, risk-benefit of LTBA, patient and surgeon considerations, LTBA value. Surgeons involved in hernia repair received an online survey to assess consensus with these statements. Consensus was defined as high if ≥ 70% and very high if ≥ 90% of respondents agreed. Statements that had not achieved consensus agreement were revised and these were then issued for a subsequent round. Finally, 34 statements were included. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five surgeons were involved. Fourteen statements (41%) achieved very high consensus, 24 achieved consensuses (≥ 70-< 90%), whilst one (3%) just failed to achieve consensus with an agreement score of 69%. CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus opinion about the use of LTBA for hernia (Grades 2-3) as the Standard of Care was achieved. Based on the consensus scores, the steering group derived eleven keys.

Predictive factors of recurrence for laparoscopic repair of primary and incisional ventral hernias with single mesh from a multicenter study.

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) is a widely practiced treatment for primary (PH) and incisional (IH) hernias, with acceptable outcomes. Prevention of recurrence is crucial and still highly debated. Purpose of this study was to evaluate predictive factors of recurrence following LVHR with intraperitoneal onlay mesh with a single type of mesh for both PH and IH. A retrospective, multicentre study of data collected from patients who underwent LVHR for PH and IH with an intraperitoneal monofilament polypropylene mesh from January 2014 to December 2018 at 8 referral centers was conducted, and statistical analysis for risk factors of recurrence and post-operative outcomes was performed. A total of 1018 patients were collected, with 665 cases of IH (65.3%) and 353 of PH (34.7%). IH patients were older (p < 0.001), less frequently obese (p = 0.031), at higher ASA class (p < 0.001) and presented more frequently with large, swiss cheese type and border site defects (p < 0.001), compared to PH patients. Operative time and hospital stay were longer for IH (p < 0.001), but intraoperative and early post-operative complications and reinterventions were comparable. IH group presented at major risk of recurrence than PH (6.7% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001) and application of absorbable tacks resulted a significative predictive factor for recurrence increasing the risk by 2.94 (95% CI 1.18-7.31). LVHR with a light-weight polypropylene mesh has low intra- and post-operative complications and is appropriate for both IH and PH. Non absorbable tacks and mixed fixation system seem to be preferable to absorbable tacks alone.

"Complex abdominal wall" management: evidence-based guidelines of the Italian Consensus Conference.

To date, there is no shared consensus on a definition of a complex abdominal wall in elective surgery and in the emergency, on indications, technical details, complications, and follow-up. The purpose of the conference was to lay the foundations for a homogeneous approach to the complex abdominal wall with the primary intent being to attain the following objectives: (1) to develop evidence-based recommendations to define "complex abdominal wall"; (2) indications in emergency and in elective cases; (3) management of "complex abdominal wall"; (4) techniques for temporary abdominal closure. The decompressive laparostomy should be considered in a case of abdominal compartment syndrome in patients with critical conditions or after the failure of a medical treatment or less invasive methods. In the second one, beyond different mechanism, patients with surgical emergency diseases might reach the same pathophysiological end point of trauma patients where a preventive "open abdomen" might be indicated (a temporary abdominal closure: in the case of a non-infected field, the Wittmann patch and the NPWT had the best outcome followed by meshes; in the case of an infected field, NPWT techniques seem to be the preferred). The second priority is to create optimal both general as local conditions for healing: the right antimicrobial management, feeding-preferably by the enteral route-and managing correctly the open abdomen wall. The use of a mesh appears to be-if and when possible-the gold standard. There is a lot of enthusiasm about biological meshes. But the actual evidence supports their use only in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields but above all, to reduce the higher rate of recurrences, the wall anatomy and function should be restored in the midline, with or without component separation technique. On the other site has not to be neglected that the use of monofilament and macroporous non-absorbable meshes, in extraperitoneal position, in the setting of the complex abdomen with contamination, seems to have a cost effective role too. The idea of this consensus conference was mainly to try to bring order in the so copious, but not always so "evident" literature utilizing and exchanging the expertise of different specialists.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a multicenter comparative analysis on short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In literature, most of the comparative studies of robotic (RRC) versus laparoscopic (LRC) right colectomy are biased by the type of the anastomotic technique adopted. With this study, we aim to understand whether there is a role for robotics in performing right colectomies, comparing RRC versus LRC, both performed with intracorporeal anastomosis. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive right colectomy (robotic or laparoscopic) with intracorporeal anastomosis in three Italian high-volume centers between February 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017 were included. Patients were grouped according to the method of surgery: RRC or LRC. RESULTS: A total of 389 patients were included in the study (305 RRC vs. 84 LRC). Patients' baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Operative time was significantly longer in RRC (250 min, IQR 209-305) group than LRC group (160 min, IQR 130-200) (p < 0.001). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 22 (IQR 18-29) in RRC group while it was 19 (IQR 15-27) in LRC one (p = 0.028). No significant differences between the groups were seen in terms of time-to-first flatus, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. Re-admission rate was significantly higher in LRC (n = 3, 3.6%) group than in RRC group (n = 1, 0.3%) (p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, RRC and LRC are comparable in terms of functional postoperative outcomes and length of hospital stay. RRC requires longer operative time, but the number of lymph nodes harvested may be higher.

Joint consensus on abdominal robotic surgery and anesthesia from a task force of the SIAARTI and SIC.

Minimally invasive surgical procedures have revolutionized the world of surgery in the past decades. While laparoscopy, the first minimally invasive surgical technique to be developed, is widely used and has been addressed by several guidelines and recommendations, the implementation of robotic-assisted surgery is still hindered by the lack of consensus documents that support healthcare professionals in the management of this novel surgical procedure. Here we summarize the available evidence and provide expert opinion aimed at improving the implementation and resolution of issues derived from robotic abdominal surgery procedures. A joint task force of Italian surgeons, anesthesiologists and clinical epidemiologists reviewed the available evidence on robotic abdominal surgery. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of evidence. Statements and recommendations are provided for general issues regarding robotic abdominal surgery, operating theatre organization, preoperative patient assessment and preparation, intraoperative management, and postoperative procedures and discharge. The consensus document provides evidence-based recommendations and expert statements aimed at improving the implementation and management of robotic abdominal surgery.

Why laparoscopists may opt for three-dimensional view: a summary of the full HTA report on 3D versus 2D laparoscopy by S.I.C.E. (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e Nuove Tecnologie).

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional view in laparoscopic general, gynaecologic and urologic surgery is an efficient, safe and sustainable innovation. The present paper is an extract taken from a full health technology assessment report on three-dimensional vision technology compared with standard two-dimensional laparoscopic systems. METHODS: A health technology assessment approach was implemented in order to investigate all the economic, social, ethical and organisational implications related to the adoption of the innovative three-dimensional view. With the support of a multi-disciplinary team, composed of eight experts working in Italian hospitals and Universities, qualitative and quantitative data were collected, by means of literature evidence, validated questionnaire and self-reported interviews, applying a final MCDA quantitative approach, and considering the dimensions resulting from the EUnetHTA Core Model. RESULTS: From systematic search of literature, we retrieved the following studies: 9 on general surgery, 35 on gynaecology and urology, both concerning clinical setting. Considering simulated setting we included: 8 studies regarding pitfalls and drawbacks, 44 on teaching, 12 on surgeons' confidence and comfort and 34 on surgeons' performances. Three-dimensional laparoscopy was shown to have advantages for both the patients and the surgeons, and is confirmed to be a safe, efficacious and sustainable vision technology. CONCLUSIONS: The objective of the present paper, under the patronage of Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, was achieved in that there has now been produced a scientific report, based on a HTA approach, that may be placed in the hands of surgeons and used to support the decision-making process of the health providers.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: consensus conference-based guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard technique for gallbladder diseases in both acute and elective surgery. Nevertheless, reports from national surveys still seem to represent some doubts regarding its diffusion. There is neither a wide consensus on its indications nor on its possible related morbidity. On the other hand, more than 25 years have passed since the introduction of LC, and we have all witnessed the exponential growth of knowledge, skill and technology that has followed it. In 1995, the EAES published its consensus statement on laparoscopic cholecystectomy in which seven main questions were answered, according to the available evidence. During the following 20 years, there have been several additional guidelines on LC, mainly focused on some particular aspect, such as emergency or concomitant biliary tract surgery. METHODS: In 2012, several Italian surgical societies decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in the treatment of gallbladder diseases in adults, to update and supplement the existing guidelines with recommendations that reflect what is known and what constitutes good practice concerning LC.

Laparoscopic transperitoneal left adrenalectomy and wandering spleen risk.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic transperitoneal left adrenalectomy (LTLA) has become the standard treatment for adrenal masses<6 cm. LTLA involves the dissection of splenic suspensory ligaments, which replicates their congenital absence or weakening, present in cases of wandering spleen (WS). WS is a rare condition in which the spleen migrates from the left upper quadrant to a more caudal location in the abdomen. A unique case of WS after LTLA was described by Corcione et al. In this prospective study, we investigated the possibility of WS as a consequence of LTLA. METHODS: Twenty-four patients, 8 men and 16 women, who underwent LTLA with the dissection of splenoparietal and splenorenal ligaments were selected. RESULTS: Clinical and ultrasonographic follow-up showed no evidence of postoperative WS. CONCLUSIONS: In the literature, WS is not commonly reported as a postoperative complication of LTLA. In effect, especially in the case of small adrenal masses, the spleen's repositioning in its seat is autonomous. However, the alarming possibility of WS should not be ignored, especially in the case of extensive dissection of the left colic flexure. It would be useful for other authors to signal this complication, so that different approaches and consequent results may be compared.

Italian Biological Prosthesis Work-Group (IBPWG): proposal for a decisional model in using biological prosthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Indications for repair of abdominal hernia are well established and widely diffused. Controversies still exist about the indication in using the different prosthetic materials and principally about the biological ones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In February 2012, the Italian Biological Prosthesis Work-Group (IBPWG), counting a background of 264 biologic implants, met in Bergamo (Italy) for 1-day meeting with the aim to elaborate a decisional model on biological prosthesis use in abdominal surgery. RESULTS: A diagram to simplify the decisional process in using biologics has been elaborated. CONCLUSION: The present score represents a first attempt to combine scientific knowledge and clinical expertise in order to offer precise indications about the kind of biological mesh to use.

Liver resection for primary intrahepatic stones: a single-center experience.

HYPOTHESIS: Primary intrahepatic lithiasis occurs frequently in East Asia but is rare in Western countries. Biliary pain and episodes of cholangitis are the most common presenting symptoms, whereas intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma represents a long-term unfavorable complication of the disease. When a single liver lobe or segment is involved, partial hepatectomy may be regarded today as an effective method of treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Hepatobiliary unit in a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: The clinical records of 35 patients treated for primary intrahepatic lithiasis between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2005, were reviewed and clinical data, cholangiograms, operative procedures, and early and late results were examined. INTERVENTIONS: Thirty-four patients underwent liver resection; left hepatectomy (18 patients) and left lateral segmentectomy (10 patients) were the most frequently performed procedures. A cholangiocarcinoma was found in 3 patients (8.6%): 2 underwent liver resection and 1, who was found unresectable at surgery, underwent only explorative laparotomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival, quality of life, laboratory data, and need for further treatments. RESULTS: There was no postoperative mortality. Morbidity was 20.0% with a prevalence of infectious complications related to bile leakage. Long-term results, assessed in 26 patients with follow-up longer than 12 months (range, 12-170 months; mean, 63 months), were good or fair in 24 patients (92.3%), including 3 patients who needed subsequent endoscopic removal of biliary stones. CONCLUSIONS: Primary intrahepatic lithiasis more commonly involves 1 single liver segment or lobe. Partial hepatectomy is a safe and effective procedure, allowing definitive treatment of the disease and prevention of cancer.