Intraoperative cholangiography with filling defects: comparative complication analysis of postoperative transcystic duct (TCD) catheter maintenance.

BACKGROUND: This is a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) with positive findings for filling defects. We comparatively assessed differences in complication risks for patients that had their cholangiography catheter maintained in its transcystic duct (TCD) position postoperatively. This is a practice proposed to overcome the limited availability of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as well as to avoid surgical exploration of the common bile duct. METHODS: Retrospective medical record review of all positive IOC from January 2015 to December 2018 were assessed. Patients' demographic and perioperative data from the hospital stay period in which the cholecystectomy occurred until the last surgical ambulatory visit for perioperative characteristics were compared between groups (with vs. without TCD catheter). Complications were operationalized using the Clavien-Dindo scale. RESULTS: Univariate analysis of complications showed a 2.4-fold risk increase in complications (95% CI 1.13-5.1) between comparison groups. Number of ERCPs (18 vs. 30), and MRCPs (5 vs. 17) were not significantly different between maintaining or not the TCD catheter postop, respectively. Stratified analysis followed by exact logistic regression supported the findings that maintaining the TCD catheter postoperatively increased complication rates (OR = 5.34, 95% CI 1.22, 29.83, p = 0.022), adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: The maintenance of the TCD catheter postoperatively did not prove to be effective in significantly reducing the number of ERCP nor associated complications. Also, outcomes inherited from the practice caused adverse events that surpassed its potential benefits. Moreover, expectant follow-up is reasonable for patients with evidence of common bile duct stones, even in setting with limited resource availability. We do not recommend this practice, even in settings where there are limited resources of more modern management of choledocholithiasis.

Abdominal skin tensile strength in aesthetic and massive weight loss patients and its role in ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Clarifying the biomechanics of abdominal skin could lead to different uses for this tissue such as the ventral repair of hernias in patients with excess skin and incisional hernias. The objective of this study was to compare the maximum tensile strength of abdominal skin to commercial meshes and to verify whether or not it varies between aesthetic patients and massive weight-loss patients. METHODS: Experimental cross-sectional study. Skin samples sized 32 × 20 mm were taken from 15 abdominoplasties and 10 panniculectomies. The skin specimens were analyzed in vertical and horizontal tensile strength tests. Results were compared between the two groups including their traction directions. Commercial meshes were also tested. The results were analyzed using the Generalized Estimating Equation. RESULTS: The maximum tensile strength supported vertically by abdominal dermis was 403.5 ± 27.4 N in the abdominoplasty group and 425.9 ± 33.9 N in the panniculectomy group. Horizontally, the values were 596.5 ± 32.2 N and 612.5 ± 43.9 N respectively. The strengths between traction directions were significantly different (p < 0.001). There were no differences between the groups with regard to the maximum tensile strength (p = 0.472). Tested commercial meshes had the following values: polypropylene 104.6 N, low-weight polypropylene 54.4 N, polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) 82.2 N, and hydrated porcine small-intestinal submucosa 60.0 N. CONCLUSION: In our study, the tensile strength of the tested human abdominal dermis samples, both aesthetic and post-bariatric, was superior to the commercial meshes. Therefore, in selected cases, abdominal dermis could be an alternative tool in abdominal reconstruction during panniculectomies with concomitant hernia repair.

Implementation of the Versius Surgical System in Complex Abdominal Wall Repair: First Reported Case of an Robotic ETEP/TAR Procedure.

BACKGROUND: Robotic ventral hernia repair has been increasing globally, with comparable outcomes to laparoscopic repair and lower rates of conversion to open surgery. Robotic surgery is increasing in popularity, and there is a number of new robotic systems entering the marketing. We report the first case of a Roboic eTEP using the Versius robotic system in a patient with an incisional hernia. METHODS: Surgery was performed using the Versius system from CMR surgical which consists of bedside units for each instrument and a console. The patient presented with an incisional hernia measuring 9.5×5 cm in the left flank. RESULTS: The patient was discharged on postoperative day (POD) 2 with a drain. There was no need for opioids. The drain was removed at POD 7. The patient presented at POD 10 with erythema and cellulitis in the area that previously had tape on it, and it was resolved with a short course of oral antibiotics. CONCLUSION: The eTEP technique for hernia surgery was safe and feasible using the Versius robotic system. Implementation is possible in experienced hands with minimal changes to the surgical techniques.

Mesh versus suture for elective primary umbilical hernia open repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Recent guidelines indicate the use of mesh in UHR for defects > 1 cm, as it reduces recurrence, with 10% recurrence rate compared to up to 54.5% with primary closure. However, Nguyen et al. shows that primary closure is still widely performed in UHR, especially for small defects (1-2 cm), for which there is no published data to determine the optimal approach. In addition, previous meta-analysis by Madsen et al. comparing mesh repair with primary closure in UHR didn't exclude emergency conditions and recurrent hernias; also, didn't report subgroup analysis on hernia defect size. Thus, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the mesh repairs vs. primary closure of the defect in an open elective primary UHR. METHODS: We searched for studies comparing mesh with suture in open UHR in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Scielo, and Lilacs from inception until October 2023. Studies with patients ≤ 18 years old, with recurrent or emergency conditions were excluded. Outcomes were recurrence, seroma, hematoma, wound infection, and hospital length of stay. Subgroup analysis was performed for: (1) RCTs only, and (2) hernia defects smaller than 2 cm. We used RevMan 5.4. for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics, and random effect was used if I² > 25%. RESULTS: 2895 studies were screened and 56 were reviewed. 12 studies, including 4 RCTs, 1 prospective cohort, and 7 retrospective cohorts were included, comprising 2926 patients in total (47.6% in mesh group and 52.4% in the suture group). Mesh repair showed lower rates of recurrence in the overall analysis (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; P = 0.003; I2 = 24%) and for hernia defects smaller than 2 cm (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%). Suture repair showed lower rates of seroma (RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.32; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%) and wound infection (RR 1.65; 95%CI 1.12 to 2.43; P = 0.01; I2 = 15%) in the overall analysis, with no differences after performing subgroup analysis of RCTs. No differences were seen regarding hematoma and hospital length of stay. CONCLUSION: The use of mesh during UHR is associated with significantly lower incidence of recurrence in a long-term follow-up compared to the suture repair, reinforcing the previous indications of the guidelines. Additionally, despite the overall analysis showing higher risk of seroma and wound infection for the mesh repair, no differences were seen after subgroup analysis of RCTs. STUDY REGISTRATION: A review protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024476854).

The Impact of a Specialized Hernia Center and Standardized Practices on Surgical Outcomes in Hernia Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Aim: Hernia registries report that guidelines are not always implemented by general surgeons and suggest that the success rate of this procedure is higher in hernia specialty centers. There are many definitions of hernia centers, but their objectives consist of improving healthcare by homogenizing the clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze hernia centers' definitions and compare hernia centers with non-specialized centers. Material and Methods: Cochrane Central, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies defining a hernia center or comparing hernia centers and non-specialized centers. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, surgical site events, hospital length of stay (LOS), and operative time. We performed subgroup analyses of hernia type. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio. Results: 3,260 studies were screened and 88 were thoroughly reviewed. Thirteen studies were included. Five studies defined a hernia center and eight studies, comprising 141,366 patients, compared a hernia center with a non-specialized center. Generally, the definitions were similar in decision-making and educational requirements but differed in structural aspects and the steps required for the certification. We found lower recurrence rates for hernia centers for both inguinal (1.08% versus 5.11%; RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.23; p < 0.001) and ventral hernia (3.2% vs. 8.9%; RR 0.425; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64; p < 0.001). Hernia centers also presented lower surgical site infection for both ventral (4.3% vs. 11.9%; RR 0.435; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.90; p = 0.026) and inguinal (0.1% vs. 0.52%; RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.99; p = 0.49) repair. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis support that a hernia center establishment improves postoperative outcomes data. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024522263, PROSPERO CRD42024522263.

Retained surgical sponge mimicking GIST: Laparoscopic diagnosis and removal 34 years after original surgery.

The term gossypiboma denotes a cotton foreign body retained inside the patient during surgery, a rare surgical complication. The symptoms following this entity are non-specific, such as pain, palpable mass and fever, which make clinical diagnosis difficult. The computerized tomography (CT) scan is the most useful method for diagnosis; however, sometimes the preoperative diagnosis remains uncertain even after the imaging exam. In that case, laparoscopy arises as a valuable diagnostic tool, as well as a prompt treatment option. However, when diagnosis is made years after the original surgery, the laparoscopic approach becomes harder. Our patient presented without clear symptoms, remaining asymptomatic for 34 years. The CT scan presumptive diagnosis was a gastrointestinal stromal tumour, and laparoscopy was performed providing an accurate diagnosis and treatment in the same surgical time.

Learning Curve of Robotic Enhanced-View Extraperitoneal Approach for Ventral Hernia Repairs.

Introduction: The enhanced-view extraperitoneal (eTEP) technique was first described for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs and later for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. The objective of this study was to report our early experience and learning curve (LC) with the robotic-assisted eTEP (R-eTEP) approach. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-eTEP repair for ventral hernias from December 2018 to September 2021. A single surgeon operative time (OT)-based LC was evaluated. Results: A total of 81 patients underwent an R-eTEP from December 2018 to September 2021. Sixty-five patients were ultimately included in our analysis. Fifty-seven patients underwent eTEP-Rives-Stoppa (RS) and 8 patients underwent eTEP-transversus abdominis release (TAR). The median age in the whole cohort was 57 years (interquartile range [IQR] 51.5-64.5 years) with no difference between the groups. The median body mass index (BMI) was 31 kg/m2 (IQR 27-34.7 kg/m2) in the eTEP-RS group and 29.7 kg/m2 (IQR 28.5-31 kg/m2) in the eTEP-TAR group. There were 36 incisional hernias (63%) in the eTEP-RS group and 8 (100%) in the eTEP-TAR group. There were 14 recurrent hernias (25%) in the eTEP-RS group and 2 (25%) in the eTEP-TAR group. The LC was evaluated only in the eTEP-RS cases. We divided the cohort into 3 chronological groups (G1, G2, and G3), including 19 cases each. The median OT in each group was 177 (IQR 147-200), 153 (IQR 127-187), and 125 minutes (IQR 106-152 minutes), respectively. There was no difference in the median OT between G1 and G2 (P = .390). G3 had a shorter median OT than G2 (P = .02) and G1 (P = .001). There was no difference between these groups in median age, BMI, defect area, defect width, and mesh area. Conclusions: The R-eTEP approach has been shown to be safe and feasible for ventral and incisional hernia repairs. A statistically significant decrease in OT was observed after 38 cases.

Incisional Hernias after Vascular Surgery for Aortoiliac Aneurysm and Aortoiliac Occlusive Arterial Disease: Has Prophylactic Mesh Changed This Scenario?

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) is an important surgical complication that has several ways of prevention, including modifications in the surgical technique of the initial procedure. Its incidence can reach 69% in high-risk patients and long-term follow-up. Of the risky procedures, open abdominal aortic aneurysmectomy is the one with the highest risk. Ways to reduce this morbid complication were suggested, and prophylactic mesh rises as an important tool to prevent recurrence. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study review of medical records of patients undergoing vascular surgery for abdominal aortoiliac aneurysm (AAA) or vascular bypass surgery due to aortoiliac occlusive disease. We identified 193 patients treated between 2010 and 2020. We further performed a one-to-nine matching analysis between the use of prophylactic mesh and control groups, based on estimated propensity scores for each patient. RESULTS: Prophylactic mesh group had a 18% lower risk of IH, compared with the control group (relative risk: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74-0.93). The difference in IH rates between the groups compared was 2.6% (95% CI: -19.8 to 25.5). From the perspective of the number needed to treat, it would be necessary to use prophylactic mesh in 39 (95% CI: 35-44) patients to avoid one IH in this population. CONCLUSION: Use of prophylactic mesh in the repair of AAA significantly reduces the incidence of IH in nearly one in five cases. Our data suggest that there is benefit in the use of prophylactic mesh in open aneurysmectomy surgery regarding postoperative IH development.

Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair After Prostatectomy: How to Navigate Safely.

INTRODUCTION: In recent decades, minimally invasive approaches have found their place in treating a specific subset of patients with inguinal hernias, predominantly those with recurrent or bilateral disease. Classically, prior history of urologic pelvic operations, such as prostatectomy, has been listed as relative contraindication for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair. As the adoption of the robotics platform continues to grow, we aim to outline a feasible robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair technique in patients with previous prostatectomies. We report the outcomes of 15 patients who underwent repair at 2 institutions. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series of 15 patients who underwent robotic transabdominal preperitoneal approach repair of their inguinal hernias after prostatectomy. Demographics, intraoperative variables, and outcomes of our cases are described. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included in our cohort. All patients had a history of prostatectomy (7 open, 2 laparoscopic, and 6 robotic) due to prostate cancer. Median age was 70 years old (range: 60 to 89 y), with a median body mass index of 26.3 kg/m2 (range: 20.5 to 37.4 kg/m2). Hernia defects were bilateral in 6 patients and unilateral in the remaining 9 (right; 6, left; 3). The shortest interval between prostatectomy and subsequent hernia repair was 4 months (range: 4 to 216 mo). The median operative time was 139 min (range: 91 to 281 min). All defects were repaired using a polypropylene mesh except in 1 case, where a coated monofilament polyester mesh was used after having a large peritoneal defect to close, preventing future adhesions to the bowel. Mesh sizes used were large (16×11 cm), extra-large (17×12 cm) for anatomic mesh, and 20×15 cm for the monofilament polyester mesh. The mesh was fixed in 14 of 15 cases. Fixation was accomplished with absorbable suture (n=13), barbed suture (n=1), and fibrin sealant (n=1). Peritoneal closure was always performed using a continuous running v-loc suture. There were no documented major intraoperative complications, no 30-day readmission, or recurrences recorded within the follow-up period. Postoperatively, only 2 seromas and 1 hematoma were documented during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic inguinal hernia repairs in patients with previous prostatectomy is safe and feasible in most patients. Larger patient series are needed to confirm these findings.

Peritoneal inflammatory response of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) versus laparoscopy with carbon dioxide and air pneumoperitoneum.

BACKGROUND: The immunologic and physiologic effects of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) versus traditional surgical approaches are poorly understood. Previous investigations have shown that NOTES and laparoscopy share similar inflammatory cytokine profiles except for a possible late-phase tissue necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) depression with NOTES. The local peritoneal reaction and immunomodulatory influence of pneumoperitoneum agents in NOTES also are not known and may play an important role in altering the physiologic insult induced by NOTES. METHODS: In this study, 51 animals were divided into four study groups, which respectively underwent abdominal exploration via transgastric NOTES using room air (AIR) or carbon dioxide (CO(2)) or via laparoscopy (LX) using AIR or CO(2) for pneumoperitoneum. Laparotomy and sham surgeries were additionally performed as control conditions. Measurements of TNF-alpha, interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta), and IL-6 were performed for peritoneal fluid collected after 0, 2, 4, and 6 h and on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 2, and 7. RESULTS: Of the 45 animals assessed, 6 were excluded because of technical operative complications. The findings showed that LX-CO(2) generated the most pronounced response with all three inflammatory markers. However, no significant differences were detected between LX-CO(2) and either NOTES group at these peak points. No differences were encountered between NOTES-CO(2) and NOTES-AIR. Subgroup comparisons showed significantly higher levels of TNF-alpha and IL-6 with NOTES-CO(2) than with LX-AIR on POD 1 (p = 0.022) and POD 2 (p = 0.002). The LX-CO(2) subgroup had significantly higher levels of TNF-alpha than the LX-AIR subgroup at 4 h (p = 0.013) and on POD 1 (p = 0.021). No late-phase TNF-alpha depression occurred in the NOTES animals. CONCLUSION: The local inflammatory reaction to NOTES was similar to that with traditional laparoscopy, and the previously described late-phase systemic TNF-alpha depression in serum was not reproduced. At the peritoneal level, NOTES is no more physiologically stressful than laparoscopy. Furthermore, regardless of which gas was used, the role of the pneumoperitoneum agent did not affect the cytokine profile after NOTES, suggesting that air pneumoperitoneum is adequate for NOTES.

Human peritoneal membrane controls adhesion formation and host tissue response following intra-abdominal placement in a porcine model.

BACKGROUND: Even with the advent of bioresorbable barriers, complications due to visceral adhesions following surgery continue to occur. The use of a homologous adhesive barrier such as human peritoneal membrane (HPM) could prevent adhesions formation and enhance wound healing. This study evaluates HPM as an effective adhesive barrier in a porcine model simulating a ventral hernia procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through a midline laparotomy, meshes (10 cmx10 cm) were sewn onto the intact peritoneum of a pig, on each side of a midline incision in superior and inferior positions (4 randomized meshes/pig, n=9 pigs). The pigs were survived for 90 d. The meshes used were: HPM, compressed polytetrafluoro-ethylene (cPTFE), cPTFE+HPM, and polyester-collagen composite (PX). Exploratory laparoscopy was performed at 30 and 90 d to evaluate the extent of visceral adhesions. At necropsy, the extent and tenacity of visceral adhesions as well as material-abdominal wall integration were evaluated. Finally, host tissue response was assessed through scoring of inflammation, foreign body reaction, and mesothelialization. RESULTS: HPM and PX led to the least extent and tenacity of visceral adhesions compared to cPTFE and cPTFE+HPM, but integrated less strongly within the adjacent abdominal wall. PX displayed the most robust foreign body reaction among all prosthetic materials, while HPM scored similarly to the native peritoneum. The extent of mesothelialization was similar throughout the materials tested. CONCLUSIONS: The HPM barrier which promotes long-term peritoneal remodeling could diminish postsurgical intraperitoneal adhesions following hernia repair.