RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the use of Indocyanine Green (ICG) fluorescence-guided surgery during open and laparoscopic procedures has exponentially expanded across various clinical settings. The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) initiated a consensus development conference on this topic with the aim of creating evidence-based statements and recommendations for the surgical community. METHODS: An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate to this project. Systematic reviews of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane libraries were performed to identify evidence on potential benefits of ICG fluorescence-guided surgery on clinical practice and patient outcomes. Statements and recommendations were prepared and unanimously agreed by the panel; they were then submitted to all EAES members through a two-rounds online survey and results presented at the EAES annual congress, Barcelona, November 2021. RESULTS: A total of 18,273 abstracts were screened with 117 articles included. 22 statements and 16 recommendations were generated and approved. In some areas, such as the use of ICG fluorescence-guided surgery during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the perfusion assessment in colorectal surgery and the search for the sentinel lymph nodes in gynaecological malignancies, the large number of evidences in literature has allowed us to strongly recommend the use of ICG for a better anatomical definition and a reduction in post-operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, from the systematic literature review performed by the experts panel and the survey extended to all EAES members, ICG fluorescence-guided surgery could be considered a safe and effective technology. Future robust clinical research is required to specifically validate multiple organ-specific applications and the potential benefits of this technique on clinical outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Colecistectomía Laparoscópica , Laparoscopía , Humanos , Verde de Indocianina , Consenso , Fluorescencia , Laparoscopía/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The incidence of incisional hernia is up to 20 per cent after abdominal surgery. The management of patients with incisional hernia can be complex with an array of techniques and meshes available. Ensuring consistency in reporting outcomes across studies on incisional hernia is important and will enable appropriate interpretation, comparison and data synthesis across a range of clinical and operative treatment strategies. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE (from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2019) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All studies documenting clinical and patient-reported outcomes for incisional hernia were included. RESULTS: In total, 1340 studies were screened, of which 92 were included, reporting outcomes on 12 292 patients undergoing incisional hernia repair. Eight broad-based outcome domains were identified, including patient and clinical demographics, hernia-related symptoms, hernia morphology, recurrent incisional hernia, operative variables, postoperative variables, follow-up and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical outcomes such as hernia recurrence rates were reported in 80 studies (87 per cent). A total of nine different definitions for detecting hernia recurrence were identified. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 31 studies (34 per cent), with 18 different assessment measures used. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates the significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting in incisional hernia studies, with significant variation in outcome assessment and definitions. This is coupled with significant under-reporting of patient-reported outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Herniorrafia/métodos , Hernia Incisional/cirugía , Humanos , Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Recurrencia , Mallas Quirúrgicas/efectos adversosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Morbidity following open inguinal hernia repair is mainly related to chronic pain. ProGrip™ is a self-gripping mesh which aims to reduce rates of chronic pain. The aim of this study is to perform an update meta-analysis to consolidate the non-superiority hypothesis in terms of postoperative pain and recurrence and perform a trial sequential analysis. METHODS: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) method. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pain and secondary outcomes were recurrence, operative time, wound complications, length of stay, re-operation rate, and cost. Trial sequential analysis was performed. RESULTS: There were 14 studies included in the quantitative analysis with 3180 patients randomised to self-gripping mesh (1585) or standard mesh (1595). At all follow-up time points, there was no significant difference in the rates of chronic pain between the self-gripping and standard mesh (risk ratio, RR 1.10, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.83-1.46). There were no significant differences in recurrence rates (RR 1.13, CI 0.84-2.04). The mean operating time was significantly shorted in the ProGrip™ mesh group (MD - 7.32 min, CI - 10.21 to - 4.44). Trial sequential analysis suggests findings are conclusive. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis has confirmed no benefit of a ProGrip™ mesh when compared to a standard sutured mesh for open inguinal hernia repair in terms of chronic pain or recurrence. No further trials are required to address this clinical question.
Asunto(s)
Hernia Inguinal , Hernia Inguinal/cirugía , Herniorrafia/efectos adversos , Humanos , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia , Dolor Postoperatorio/epidemiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/etiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Recurrencia , Mallas Quirúrgicas , SuturasAsunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Operativos/normas , COVID-19 , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia/métodos , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia/normas , Humanos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyse local single-institution data and perform a systematic review of the literature to calculate precise risk estimates of rectal stump-related morbidity and mortality following subtotal colectomy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn's colitis, ulcerative colitis and indeterminate colitis. METHODS: Institutional information systems were interrogated to obtain local patient data. A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to identify relevant articles. Fixed-effects or random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was performed to calculate pooled incidence estimates, including local data. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included locally and all had their rectal stump closed intra-abdominally. Four patients (8.3%) had a rectal stump perforation and 30-day mortality was 0. Fourteen papers were included in our review alongside local data, with a total of 1330 patients included. Pooled mortality was 1.7% (95% confidence interval, CI 1.0-2.8), pooled incidence of pelvic abscess/sepsis, stump leak and wound infection was 5.7% (95% CI 4.4-7.3), 4.9% (95% CI 3.7-6.6) and 11.3% (95% CI 7.8-16), respectively. Subcutaneous placement of the stump was associated with the highest incidence of stump leak (12.6%, 95% CI 8.3-18.6), and closure of the stump with both staples and suture was associated with the highest incidence of pelvic abscess (11.1%, 95% CI 5.8-20.3). Mortality and the incidence of wound infection were similar across stump closure techniques. There was evidence suggesting considerable heterogeneity and publication bias among studies. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides estimates of morbidity associated with the rectal stump after subtotal colectomy for IBD. A closed intra-abdominal stump seems to be associated with the highest rate of pelvic abscess/sepsis. Further work in form of an international collaborative project would allow individual patient data analysis and identification of risk factors for complications.
Asunto(s)
Colitis Ulcerosa , Colitis , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino , Estudios de Cohortes , Colectomía , Colitis/cirugía , Colitis Ulcerosa/cirugía , Humanos , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/cirugía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Recto/cirugíaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Incisional hernia following closure of loop ileostomy is a common problem. Assessment of the proportion of this complication is limited by small sample size and inconsistent reporting. The aim of this review was to provide an estimate of the proportion of incisional hernia following closure of loop ileostomy according to clinical and radiological diagnostic criteria and to investigate the association of bibliometric and study quality parameters with reported proportion. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ISRCTN Registry and Open Grey from 2000 onwards was performed according to PRISMA standards. Reporting on the type of stoma and mesh reinforcement after closure was mandatory for inclusion, whereas studies on paediatric populations were excluded. Fixed effect or random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportion estimates. Meta-regression models were formed to explore potential heterogeneity. RESULTS: 42 studies with 7166 patients were included. The pooled estimate of the proportion of incisional hernia after ileostomy closure was 6.1% (95% confidence interval, CI 4.4-8.3%). Proportion estimates for higher quality studies and studies reporting on incisional hernia as primary outcome were 9.0% (95% CI 6.3-12.7%) and 13.1% (95% CI 8.8-19.1%). Significant between-study heterogeneity was identified (P < 0.001, I2 = 87%) and the likelihood of publication bias was high (P = 0.028). Mixed effects regression showed that both year of publication (P = 0.034, Q = 4.484, df = 1.000) and defining hernia as a primary outcome (Q = 20.298, P < 0.001) were related to effect size. Method of follow-up and quality of the studies affected the proportion. CONCLUSION: The proportion of incisional hernia at ileostomy closure site is estimated at 6.1%. Reporting incisional hernia as primary or secondary outcome, the method of diagnosis, the year of publication and methodological quality are associated with reported proportion.
Asunto(s)
Ileostomía , Hernia Incisional/etiología , Estomas Quirúrgicos/efectos adversos , Humanos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: One standard repair technique for groin hernias does not exist. The objective of this study is to perform an update meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to investigate if there is a difference in terms of recurrence between laparoscopic and open primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: The reporting methodology conforms to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Randomised controlled trials only were included. The intervention was laparoscopic mesh repair (transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP)). The control group was Lichtenstein repair. The primary outcome was recurrence rate and secondary outcomes were acute and chronic post-operative pain, morbidity and quality of life. RESULTS: This study included 12 randomised controlled trials with 3966 patients randomised to Lichtenstein repair (n = 1926) or laparoscopic repair (n = 2040). There were no significant differences in recurrence rates between the laparoscopic and open groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.51-2.55, p = 0.76). Laparoscopic repair was associated with reduced rate of acute pain compared to open repair (mean difference 1.19, CI - 1.86, - 0.51, p ≤ 0.0006) and reduced odds of chronic pain compared to open (OR 0.41, CI 0.30-0.56, p ≤ 0.00001). The included trials were, however, of variable methodological quality. Trial sequential analysis reported that further studies are unlikely to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis report no difference in recurrence rates between laparoscopic and open primary unilateral inguinal hernia repairs. Rates of acute and chronic pain are significantly less in the laparoscopic group.
Asunto(s)
Hernia Inguinal/cirugía , Herniorrafia/métodos , Humanos , Laparoscopía , Masculino , Mallas Quirúrgicas , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study investigates if pledgeted sutures for hiatal closure could be an alternative to mesh for the surgical treatment of large hiatal hernia. METHODS: Forty-one patients who underwent laparoscopic 270° Toupet fundoplication with pledgeted sutured crura between September 2014 and April 2017 were evaluated with regard to recurrence of hiatal hernia at 3 months and 1 year after surgery. Indication for pledgets was a hiatal surface area of at least 5.60 cm2, or migration of more than 1/3 of the stomach into the thorax or preoperative hernia size > 5 cm. The integrity of repair was assessed using a barium swallow test 3 months and 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: All operations could be completed laparoscopically with no intraoperative complications. Until study end no complications related to the pledgets have occurred. Forty-four of 50 patients (88.0%) completed the follow-up radiographic examination 3 months (mean 12.7 weeks) after surgery, and 37 patients (74.0%; mean 55.1 weeks) 1 year after surgery. Postoperative recurrence was diagnosed in 3/44 patients (6.8%) at 3 months, and in 4/37 patients (10.8%) at 1 year follow-up. Only one patient was symptomatic, 1 year after surgery (2.7%). All other patients with reherniations were asymptomatic at time of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of pledgets to reinforce hiatal sutures seems safe and shows a quite low early recurrence rate compared to other methods. Long-term data will allow firm conclusions as to whether pledgeted sutures are an appropriate solution for the treatment of giant hiatal hernias.
Asunto(s)
Hernia Hiatal/cirugía , Herniorrafia/métodos , Técnicas de Sutura , Suturas , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Fundoplicación , Reflujo Gastroesofágico/cirugía , Humanos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Radiografía , Recurrencia , Estudios Retrospectivos , EstómagoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To provide guidelines for all surgical specialists who deal with the open abdomen (OA) or the burst abdomen (BA) in adult patients both on the methods used to close the musculofascial layers of the abdominal wall, and regarding possible materials to be used. METHODS: The guidelines were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach including publications up to January 2017. When RCTs were available, outcomes of interest were quantitatively synthesized by means of a conventional meta-analysis. When only observational studies were available, a meta-analysis of proportions was done. The guidelines were written using the AGREE II instrument. RESULTS: For many of the Key Questions that were researched, there were no high quality studies available. While some strong recommendations could be made according to GRADE, the guidelines also contain good practice statements and clinical expertise guidance which are distinct from recommendations that have been formally categorized using GRADE. RECOMMENDATIONS: When considering the OA, dynamic closure techniques should be prioritized over the use of static closure techniques (strong recommendation). However, for techniques including suture closure, mesh reinforcement, component separation techniques and skin grafting, only clinical expertise guidance was provided. Considering the BA, a clinical expertise guidance statement was advised for dynamic closure techniques. Additionally, a clinical expertise guidance statement concerning suture closure and a good practice statement concerning mesh reinforcement during fascial closure were proposed. The role of advanced techniques such as component separation or relaxing incisions is questioned. In addition, the role of the abdominal girdle seems limited to very selected patients.
Asunto(s)
Pared Abdominal/cirugía , Técnicas de Cierre de Herida Abdominal , Europa (Continente) , Fasciotomía , Humanos , Terapia de Presión Negativa para Heridas , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Trasplante de Piel , Sociedades Médicas , Mallas QuirúrgicasRESUMEN
Controversy exists regarding the best choice of anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy. We aimed to evaluate the peri-operative outcomes of local vs. general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy. We conducted a systematic search of electronic information sources and applied a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary searches adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits in each of the electronic databases. We defined peri-operative stroke, transient ischaemic attack, mortality and myocardial infarction as the primary outcome measures. We identified 12 randomised controlled trials and 21 observational studies reporting a total of 58,212 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy under local or general anaesthesia. Analysis of observational studies demonstrated that local anaesthesia was associated with a significantly lower incidence of stroke (odds ratio (OR (95% CI) 0.66 (0.55-0.80), p < 0.0001), transient ischaemic attack (0.52 (0.38-0.70), p < 0.0001), myocardial infarction (0.55 (0.41-0.75), p = 0.0002) and mortality (0.72 (0.56-0.94), p = 0.01) compared with general anaesthesia. Analysis of randomised controlled trials did not find a significant difference in the risk of stroke (0.92 (0.67-1.28), p = 0.63), transient ischaemic attack (2.20 (0.48-10.03), p = 0.31), myocardial infarction (1.25 (0.57-2.72), p = 0.58) or mortality (0.61 (0.35-1.05), p = 0.07) between local and general anaesthesia. On trial sequential analysis of the randomised trials, the Z-curve did not cross the α-spending boundaries or futility boundaries for stroke, mortality and transient ischaemic attack, suggesting that more trials are needed to reach conclusive results. Our meta-analysis of observational studies suggests that local anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy may be associated with lower peri-operative morbidity and mortality compared with general anaesthesia. Although randomised studies have not confirmed any advantage for local anaesthesia, this may be due to a lack of pooled statistical power in these trials.
Asunto(s)
Anestesia General/métodos , Anestesia Local/métodos , Endarterectomía Carotidea/métodos , Estenosis Carotídea/complicaciones , Estenosis Carotídea/cirugía , Endarterectomía Carotidea/efectos adversos , Humanos , Ataque Isquémico Transitorio/etiología , Ataque Isquémico Transitorio/prevención & control , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & controlRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations. METHODS: A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used. RESULTS: The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes. CONCLUSION: The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.
Asunto(s)
Pared Abdominal/cirugía , Abdominoplastia , Materiales Biocompatibles , Productos Biológicos , Hernia Abdominal/cirugía , Herniorrafia , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Mallas Quirúrgicas , Abdominoplastia/efectos adversos , Abdominoplastia/instrumentación , Abdominoplastia/métodos , Materiales Biocompatibles/efectos adversos , Materiales Biocompatibles/uso terapéutico , Productos Biológicos/efectos adversos , Productos Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Consenso , Herniorrafia/efectos adversos , Herniorrafia/instrumentación , Herniorrafia/métodos , Humanos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & controlRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project. METHODS: The guidelines development group consisted of general, hernia and colorectal surgeons, a biostatistician and a biologist, from 14 European countries. These guidelines conformed to the AGREE II standards and the GRADE methodology. The databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and the gray literature through OpenGrey were searched. Quality assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. The guidelines were presented at the 38th European Hernia Society Congress and each key question was evaluated in a consensus voting of congress participants. RESULTS: End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia, compared to other types of stomas. Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Currently available classifications are not validated; however, we suggest the use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting. There is insufficient evidence on the policy of watchful waiting, the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. The use of a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon construction of an end colostomy is strongly recommended. No such recommendation can be made for other types of stomas at present. It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, a mesh without a hole is suggested in preference to a keyhole mesh when laparoscopic repair is performed. CONCLUSION: An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.
Asunto(s)
Hernia Ventral/terapia , Herniorrafia/métodos , Estomía/efectos adversos , Estomas Quirúrgicos/efectos adversos , Hernia Ventral/diagnóstico , Hernia Ventral/etiología , Humanos , Laparoscopía , Mallas QuirúrgicasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To investigate the role of perioperative beta-blocker use in vascular and endovascular surgery. METHODS: We performed a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. The review protocol was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number:CRD42016038111). We searched electronic databases to identify all randomized controlled trials and observational studies investigating outcomes of patients undergoing vascular and endovascular surgery with or without perioperative beta blockade. We used the Cochrane tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the risk of bias of trials and observational studies, respectively. Random-effects models were applied to calculate pooled outcome data. RESULTS: We identified three randomized trials, five retrospective cohort studies, and three prospective cohort studies, enrolling a total of 32,602 patients. Our analyses indicated that perioperative use of beta-blockers did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59-2.04, P = 0.77], cardiac mortality (OR 2.62, 95% CI 0.86-8.05, P = 0.09), myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.35, P = 0.58), unstable angina (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.41- 4.38, P = 0.63), stroke (OR 2.45, 95% CI 0.89-6.75, P = 0.08), arrhythmias (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.41-1.43, P = 0.40), congestive heart failure (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.77-1.63, P = 0.56), renal failure (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.90-2.45, P = 0.13), composite cardiovascular events (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55-1.40, P = 0.58), rehospitalisation (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48-1.52, P = 0.60), and reoperation (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.42-3.27, P = 0.77) in vascular surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Beta-blockers do not improve perioperative outcomes in vascular and endovascular surgery.
Asunto(s)
Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/uso terapéutico , Procedimientos Endovasculares/métodos , Atención Perioperativa , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Vasculares/métodos , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery has been developed with the objective to reduce surgical trauma, decrease associated surgical stress and to improve cosmetic outcome. However, concerns have been raised regarding the risk of trocar-site hernia following this approach. Previous meta-analyses have suggested a trend toward higher hernia rates, but have failed to demonstrate a significant difference between single-incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery. METHOD: Medline, AMED, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched up to May 2014. Randomized controlled trials comparing single-incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery were considered for inclusion. Studies with patients aged less than 18 years and those reporting on robotic surgery were disregarded. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to measure the comparative risk of trocar-site hernia following single-incision and conventional laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Nineteen randomized trials encompassing 1705 patients were included. Trocar-site hernia occurred in 2.2% of patients in the single-incision group and in 0.7% of patients in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (odds ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval 1.00-5.08, p = 0.05). Sensitivity analysis of quality randomized trials validated the outcome estimates of the primary analysis. There was no heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 0%) and no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSION: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery involving entry into the peritoneal cavity through the umbilicus is associated with a slightly higher risk of trocar-site hernia than conventional laparoscopy. Its effect on long-term morbidity and quality of life is a matter for further investigation.
Asunto(s)
Hernia Umbilical/etiología , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Ombligo/cirugía , Humanos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Instrumentos Quirúrgicos/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The material and the surgical technique used to close an abdominal wall incision are important determinants of the risk of developing an incisional hernia. Optimising closure of abdominal wall incisions holds a potential to prevent patients suffering from incisional hernias and for important costs savings in health care. METHODS: The European Hernia Society formed a Guidelines Development Group to provide guidelines for all surgical specialists who perform abdominal incisions in adult patients on the materials and methods used to close the abdominal wall. The guidelines were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and methodological guidance was taken from Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). The literature search included publications up to April 2014. The guidelines were written using the AGREE II instrument. An update of these guidelines is planned for 2017. RESULTS: For many of the Key Questions that were studied no high quality data was detected. Therefore, some strong recommendations could be made but, for many Key Questions only weak recommendations or no recommendation could be made due to lack of sufficient evidence. RECOMMENDATIONS: To decrease the incidence of incisional hernias it is strongly recommended to utilise a non-midline approach to a laparotomy whenever possible. For elective midline incisions, it is strongly recommended to perform a continuous suturing technique and to avoid the use of rapidly absorbable sutures. It is suggested using a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in a single layer aponeurotic closure technique without separate closure of the peritoneum. A small bites technique with a suture to wound length (SL/WL) ratio at least 4/1 is the current recommended method of fascial closure. Currently, no recommendations can be given on the optimal technique to close emergency laparotomy incisions. Prophylactic mesh augmentation appears effective and safe and can be suggested in high-risk patients, like aortic aneurysm surgery and obese patients. For laparoscopic surgery, it is suggested using the smallest trocar size adequate for the procedure and closure of the fascial defect if trocars larger or equal to 10 mm are used. For single incision laparoscopic surgery, we suggest meticulous closure of the fascial incision to avoid an increased risk of incisional hernias.
Asunto(s)
Pared Abdominal/cirugía , Técnicas de Cierre de Herida Abdominal , Hernia Ventral/prevención & control , Adulto , Femenino , Hernia Ventral/diagnóstico , Hernia Ventral/etiología , Humanos , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Laparotomía/efectos adversos , Masculino , Mallas Quirúrgicas , Técnicas de Sutura , SuturasRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Management of emergently admitted patients due to a complicated large paraesophageal hernia with acute symptoms of an "intrathoracic stomach" is controversial. The aim of this study was to clarify whether emergency surgery in such cases should be the procedure of choice. METHODS: The retrospective analysis of patients who were hospitalized due to emerging acute symptoms of an "intrathoracic stomach" between January 2009 and May 2013 was used as method. Patients were categorized into three groups: emergency operation within 24 h after admission, semi-elective operation within the first 7 days after admission and elective operation. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were identified. Only three (12.5 %) patients required laparoscopic emergency surgery and two incurred a perioperative complication. In consequence of persistent or early recurrent complaints a laparoscopic operation was required prior to discharge semi-elective in 6/24 (25 %) patients without complications. The remaining 15/24 (62.5 %) patients were free of complaints after conservative therapy, but all of them decided upon elective operation after informed consent. One minor complication occurred. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with acute symptoms due to an intrathoracic stomach can primarily be treated conservatively and timing of elective repair should be performed after resuscitation in a center of laparoscopic antireflux surgery.
Asunto(s)
Hernia Hiatal/cirugía , Estómago/cirugía , Enfermedad Aguda , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos , Urgencias Médicas , Femenino , Fundoplicación , Hernia Hiatal/diagnóstico por imagen , Herniorrafia , Humanos , Laparoscopía , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estómago/diagnóstico por imagen , Mallas Quirúrgicas , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos XRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Self-expanding metallic stents are increasingly used in the management of malignant and benign colorectal obstructions. We aimed to identify relevant predictive factors for stent failure and stent-related complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-center analysis of 204 consecutive patients who underwent emergency colorectal stenting procedures because of symptomatic bowel obstructions from 1996 to 2011 at the Sisters of Charity Hospital Linz, Austria. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients (median age 74 years) with 36 (17.7%) benign and 168 (82.3%) malignant obstructions were included in the study. Technical success was achieved in 92.5% and clinical success in 86.8% of the cases. Major complications occurred in 2.9% and minor ones in 19.6%. Overall mortality during a median follow-up period of 4.3 years was 73% (149 patients). Relevant predictors of increased risk of complications were extracolonic obstruction (p = 0.001), complete obstruction (p = 0.066), and inflammatory bowel disease (p = 0.05). Stent localization at the splenic flexure, a stenosis of >8 cm in length, and the need for endoscopic guidance were associated with higher rates of technical and/or clinical stenting failure. CONCLUSION: Colorectal stenting is less invasive than other means of emergency treatment for large bowel obstruction; it is generally safe and effective in different types of colorectal obstruction. However, relevant rates of failure and complications were recorded and predictors could be determined.