Direct visualization transversus abdominis plane blocks offer superior pain control compared to ultrasound guided blocks following open posterior component separation hernia repairs.

PURPOSE: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blockade with long-acting anesthetic can be used during open ventral hernia repair (VHR) with posterior component separation (PCS). TAP block can be performed under ultrasound guidance (US-TAP) or under direct visualization (DV-TAP). We hypothesized that US-TAP and DV-TAP provide equivalent postoperative analgesia following open VHR. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing open VHR with PCS who received TAP blocks with 266 mg of liposomal bupivacaine was performed. Data included demographics, comorbidities, length of stay (LOS), average postoperative day (POD) pain scores, and narcotic requirements (normalized to mg oral morphine). Statistical analysis utilized Student's t test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were identified (22 DV-TAP). There were no differences between the groups with respect to demographics, comorbidities, pre-operative pain medication usage (narcotic and non-narcotic) or herniorrhaphy-related data. The average POD0 pain score was lower for the DV-TAP group (2.35 vs 4.18; p = 0.019). Narcotic requirements on POD0 (48.0 vs 103.76 mg; p = 0.02), POD1 (128.45 vs 273.82 mg; p = 0.03), POD4 (54.29 vs 160.75 mg; p = 0.042), and during the complete hospitalization (408.52 vs 860.92 mg; p = 0.013) were lower in the DV-TAP group. There were no differences between initiation of diet or LOS. During the study, no changes were made to the VHR enhanced recovery pathway. CONCLUSIONS: DV-TAP blocks appear to provide superior analgesia in the immediate postoperative period. To achieve similar post-operative pain scores, patients in the US-TAP group required significantly more narcotic administration during their hospitalization. The study highlights DV-TAP as a valuable addition to VHR recovery pathways.

Outcomes of utilizing absorbable mesh as an adjunct to posterior sheath closure during complex posterior component separation.

BACKGROUND: A minority of patients undergoing posterior component separation (PCS) have abdominal wall defects that preclude complete reconstruction of the visceral sac with native tissue. The use of absorbable mesh bridges (AMB) to span such defects has not been established. We hypothesized that AMB use during posterior sheath closure of PCS is safe and provides favorable outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing PCS with AMB at two hernia centers. Main outcome measures included demographics, comorbidities, and post-operative complications. RESULTS: 36 patients were identified. Post-operative wound complications included five surgical site infections. At a median of 27 months, there were five recurrent hernias (13.9%), 2 of which were parastomal, but no episodes of intestinal obstruction/fistula. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of AMB for large posterior layer deficits results in acceptable rates of perioperative wound morbidity, effective PCS repairs, and does not increase intestinal morbidity or fistula formation.

An evaluation of how MRI is used as a pre-operative screening investigation in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy.

AIMS: A retrospective analysis was carried out of how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used as a pre-operative screening investigation in patients with a clinical diagnosis of medically intractable temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Up to 65% of such patients are said to have hippocampal sclerosis (HS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients in a 26-month period underwent MR examination on a 1.5 T scanner according to a routine protocol. Each patient had coronal T1-weighted and oblique coronal T2-weighted scans performed. Hippocampal volume was calculated from the T1-weighted images, the T2-weighted images being assessed for relative hippocampal signal intensity. Each individual patient's medical records were audited. RESULTS: Thirty per cent of patients in our study had a diagnosis of HS made on their MR scan. No patient had a diagnosis of HS made without prior clinical evidence of seizure lateralization. Sixty-eight per cent of patients with clinical evidence of a unilateral seizure focus had HS diagnosed by MR scanning. Forty-three per cent of patients did not have clinical evidence of an unilateral seizure focus. It was found that over 25% of patients referred to the unit did not fit the criteria of having medically intractable TLE. Nine per cent of patients had previously stated that they did not want epilepsy surgery. CONCLUSION: The lower than expected diagnostic rate of HS in this patient population reflects the broad criteria used in referring patients for imaging studies. This is likely to mirror the initial investigation of these patients outside specialist units where more extensive investigation prior to MRI is available. However, when MRI is used as an initial screening investigation, this study indicates that implementation of simple clinical criteria should significantly reduce the number of unnecessary scans.