Delphi consensus statement for understanding and managing the subcostal hernia: subcostal hernias collaborative report (scholar study).

INTRODUCTION: Subcostal hernias are categorized as L1 based on the European Hernia Society (EHS) classification and frequently involve M1, M2, and L2 sites. These are common after hepatopancreatic and biliary surgeries. The literature on subcostal hernias mostly comprises of retrospective reviews of small heterogenous cohorts, unsurprisingly leading to no consensus or guidelines. Given the limited literature and lack of consensus or guidelines for dealing with these hernias, we planned for a Delphi consensus to aid in decision making to repair subcostal hernias. METHODS: We adopted a modified Delphi technique to establish consensus regarding the definition, characteristics, and surgical aspects of managing subcostal hernias (SCH). It was a four-phase Delphi study reflecting the widely accepted model, consisting of: 1. Creating a query. 2. Building an expert panel. 3. Executing the Delphi rounds. 4. Analysing, presenting, and reporting the Delphi results. More than 70% of agreement was defined as a consensus statement. RESULTS: The 22 experts who agreed to participate in this Delphi process for Subcostal Hernias (SCH) comprised 7 UK surgeons, 6 mainland European surgeons, 4 Indians, 3 from the USA, and 2 from Southeast Asia. This Delphi study on subcostal hernias achieved consensus on the following areas-use of mesh in elective cases; the retromuscular position with strong discouragement for onlay mesh; use of macroporous medium-weight polypropylene mesh; use of the subcostal incision over midline incision if there is no previous midline incision; TAR over ACST; defect closure where MAS is used; transverse suturing over vertical suturing for closure of circular defects; and use of peritoneal flap when necessary. CONCLUSION: This Delphi consensus defines subcostal hernias and gives insight into the consensus for incision, dissection plane, mesh placement, mesh type, and mesh fixation for these hernias.

Intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The ideal location for mesh placement in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) is still up for debate. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) to evaluate the outcomes of patients who received intraperitoneal mesh versus those that received extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive VHR. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus from inception to May 3, 2021. We selected studies comparing intraperitoneal mesh versus extraperitoneal mesh placement in minimally invasive VHR. A meta-analysis was done for the outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence. A subgroup analysis was conducted for a subset of studies comparing patients who have undergone intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus extended totally extraperitoneal approach (e-TEP). RESULTS: A total of 11 studies (2320 patients) were identified. We found no statistically significant difference between patients who received intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh for outcomes of SSI, seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence [(RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.60-4.27), (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.68-2.81), (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.45-3.72), (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.69-2.86), and (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.22-6.63), respectively]. The subgroup analysis had findings similar to the overall analysis. CONCLUSION: Based on short-term results, extraperitoneal mesh does not appear to be superior to intraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. The choice of mesh location should be based on the current evidence, surgeon, and center experience as well as individualized to each patient.

Feasibility of modified-TEP technique for large inguinoscrotal and large femoral hernia and its advantages.

PURPOSE: To describe the feasibility of modified-TEP technique in reducing dead space in large inguinoscrotal and large femoral hernia to prevent seroma, reduce recurrence and complications. METHODS: This is a case series of patients who have completed a minimum of 9 months follow-up after undergoing elective endo-laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with modified-TEP technique for large inguinoscrotal and large femoral hernia in a single institution from June to October 2020. RESULTS: 14 large inguinoscrotal hernia and 4 large femoral hernia were repaired using the modified-TEP technique in 15 patients. These patients reported minimal pain after surgery. There were no reported seroma, complications or recurrences up to 9 months follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Modified-TEP technique for large inguinoscrotal and large femoral hernia has shown good outcomes and patients reported minimum levels of pain. In experienced hands, it is safe, feasible and effective in reducing seroma formation and hernia recurrence.

Minimally invasive repair for lateral ventral hernia: tailored approach from a hernia centre at a tertiary care institution.

INTRODUCTION: Lateral ventral hernia (LVH) is rare and can be primary or secondary. Surgical treatment of this rare hernia type is challenging due the anatomic location and technical challenges in placement and secure anchoring of mesh. METHOD: Patient demographic data, intra-operative data and post-operative outcomes on all LVH repairs performed with endo-laparoscopic and robotic approach between 2016 to 2018 were reviewed and analysed. RESULTS: 22 LVH were repaired in 21 patients. 9 had primary hernia and 13 had secondary hernia. All patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for hernia repair with no conversion to open surgery. Fascial defect closure and placement of mesh were performed in all cases. Different approaches were utilized: 9 hernia repaired with laparoscopic intra-peritoneal on-lay mesh technique with defect closure (IPOM +), 4 had laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal repair (TAPP), another 4 had extended totally extra-peritoneal repair (eTEP), 3 had robotic TAPP (rTAPP) and 2 repaired with trans-abdominal partial extra-peritoneal (TAPE) approach. 4 (19%) of the patients developed post-operative seroma which were managed conservatively. No other significant complication was noted, and no chronic pain or recurrence reported within a minimum follow-up of 12 months. CONCLUSION: This case series gives a broad outline of possible MIS options available for LVH repair and recommendations for a tailored approach. The surgical technique needs to be individualized according to the size and anatomic location of the defect, other intra-operative findings and patient characteristics.

Effect of direct defect closure during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair ("TEP/TAPP plus" technique) on post-operative outcomes.

PURPOSE: Seroma formation and recurrence in large inguinal hernia still remain an important clinical complication despite decades since the advent of mesh repair. METHODS: In our prospective comparative analysis, we want to evaluate the effect of direct hernia defect closure on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in two tertiary care institutions in Singapore. The direct hernia defects were closed with non-absorbable sutures incorporating the pseudosac. RESULTS: A group of 241 patients underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair for a total of 378 direct defects from April 2014 to July 2018. Of these patients, 98 (40.6%) patients underwent hernia repair without closure of their direct defect while 143 (59.4%) patients underwent direct defect closure. No significant differences were observed between the two patient populations' demographic information and the mean operative time. A total of 219 direct defects were closed and 159 direct defects were not repaired. Compared to the group that did not undergo direct defect closure, the group that had closure of the direct defects demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in recurrence (4.4% versus 0.9%, p = 0.036) and seroma formation (12.6% versus 6.4%, p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Direct defect closure has proven to be effective in reducing recurrence and seroma formation post-operatively in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Randomized controlled trials will be required to further evaluate these outcomes.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)): Part B.

In 2014 the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias". Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. METHODS: For the development of the original guidelines all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based-Medicine. For the present update all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne) the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. RESULTS: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite still insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initially guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Correction to: Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.

This article was updated to include the middle initial of author L. N. Jorgensen's name.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.

In 2014, the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias." Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. METHODS: For the development of the original guidelines, all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For the present update, all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne), the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. RESULTS: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques, it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initial guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.