Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for Prevention of Midline Incisional Hernias: A Publication Bias Adjusted Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature on the use of prophylactic mesh reinforcement of midline laparotomy closures for prevention of VIH. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: VIH are common complications of abdominal surgery. Prophylactic mesh has been proposed as an adjunct to prevent their occurrence. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane were reviewed for RCTs that compared prophylactic mesh reinforcement versus conventional suture closure of midline abdominal surgery. Primary outcome was the incidence of VIH at postoperative follow-up ≥24 months. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection and surgical site occurrence (SSO). Pooled risk ratios were obtained through random effect meta-analyses and adjusted for publication bias. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare mesh types and locations. RESULTS: Of 1969 screened articles, 12 RCTs were included. On meta-analysis there was a lower incidence of VIH with prophylactic mesh [11.1% vs 21.3%, Relative risk (RR) = 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.19-0.55, P < 0.001), however, publication bias was highly likely. When adjusted for this bias, prophylactic mesh had a more conservative effect (RR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.39-0.70). There was no difference in risk of surgical site infection (9.1% vs 8.9%, RR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.82-1.43; P = 0.118), however, prophylactic mesh increased the risk of SSO (14.2% vs 8.9%, RR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.19-2.05; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Current RCTs suggest that in mid-term follow-up prophylactic mesh prevents VIH with increased risk for SSO. There is limited long-term data and substantial publication bias.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: Two-Year Results From a Prospective, Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Report the 2-year outcomes of a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing robotic versus laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh ventral hernia repair. BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair is one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons. To our knowledge, no studies have been published to date comparing long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral hernia repair. METHODS: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03490266). Clinical outcomes included surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, hernia occurrence, readmission, reoperation, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 175 consecutive patients were approached that were deemed eligible for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. In all, 124 were randomized and 101 completed follow-up at 2 years. Two-year follow-up was completed in 54 patients (83%) in the robotic arm and 47 patients (80%) in the laparoscopic arm. No differences were seen in surgical site infection or surgical site occurrence. Hernia recurrence occurred in 2 patients (4%) receiving robotic repair versus in 6 patients (13%) receiving laparoscopic repair (relative risk: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.06-1.39; P =0.12). No patients (0%) required reoperation in the robotic arm whereas 5 patients (11%) underwent reoperation in the laparoscopic arm ( P =0.019, relative risk not calculatable due to null outcome). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic ventral hernia repair demonstrated at least similar if not improved outcomes at 2 years compared with laparoscopy. There is potential benefit with robotic repair; however, additional multi-center trials and longer follow-up are needed to validate the hypothesis-generating findings of this study.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes. METHODS: We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations. RESULTS: The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

Mesh Type With Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Synthetic mesh is widely utilized for clean ventral hernia repair; however, it is unclear if synthetic mesh provides the same benefits with high-risk patients or during contaminated cases. Many surgeons use biologic mesh in these settings, but there is little evidence to support this practice. Our objective was to compare the clinical outcomes of utilizing biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh during ventral hernia repair. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, a review of the literature was conducted using Cochrane library, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and PubMed for randomized controlled trials published that compared biologic versus synthetic mesh during ventral hernia repair. The primary outcome was major complications defined as deep or organ space surgical site infection, reoperations, and hernia recurrences. RESULTS: Of 1889 manuscripts screened, four publications were included. The four studies included a total of 758 patients, with 381 receiving biologic mesh and 377 receiving synthetic mesh. Compared to biologic mesh, synthetic mesh had lower rates of major complications (38.6% versus 23.4, risk ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval = 0.35 to 0.86, P = 0.009) and hernia recurrence (24.5 % versus 10.3%, risk ratio = 0.44, 95% confidence interval = 0.28 to 0.69, P = 0.004). In addition, there was a lower percentage of surgical site infection and reoperation in the synthetic mesh group. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to current surgical teaching, placement of permanent synthetic mesh into a contaminated field yielded rates of complications that were comparable or reduced compared to biologic mesh.

Safety and Feasibility of Performing Antireflux Procedures at a Safety Net Hospital.

INTRODUCTION: One-half of Americans have limited access to health care; these patients often receive care through safety net hospitals, which are associated with worse medical outcomes. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients who received foregut surgery at a safety net hospital to those at a private or university hospital. We hypothesized that patients treated at the safety net hospital will have a greater rate of radiographic recurrence and reoperations. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent hiatal hernia repair or fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease at an affiliated safety net, private, or university hospital from June 2015 to May 2020. The primary outcome was radiographic recurrence. The secondary outcomes included reoperation and symptom recurrence. Analysis was performed using analysis of variance, chi-square, and logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 499 patients were identified: 157 at a safety net hospital, 233 at a private hospital, and 119 at a university hospital. The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 16 (13) mo. The safety net hospital treated more Hispanics, females, and patients with comorbidities. Large hiatal hernias were more common at the safety net and private hospitals. Robotic surgery was more frequently at the university hospital. There was no difference in radiographic recurrence (13.4% versus 19.7% versus 17.6%; P = 0.269), reoperation (3.8% versus 7.2% versus 6.7%; P = 0.389), or postoperative dysphagia (15.3% versus 12.6% versus 15.1%; P = 0.696). On logistic regression, there were no differences in outcomes among institutions. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that despite the challenges faced at safety net hospitals, it could be feasible to safely perform minimally invasive foregut surgery with similar outcomes to private and university hospitals.

The Role of Biologic Mesh and Fundoplication in the Surgical Management of Hiatal Hernias: A Multicenter Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Hiatal hernia repair is associated with substantial recurrence of both hiatal hernia and symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux (GER). While small randomized controlled trials demonstrate limited differences in outcomes with use of mesh or fundoplication type, uncertainty remains. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective review of patients undergoing surgical treatment of hiatal hernias between 2015 and 2020 was performed. Patients with mesh and with suture-only repair were compared, and partial versus complete fundoplication was compared. Primary outcomes were hernia recurrence and occurrence of postoperative GER symptoms and dysphagia. Multivariable regression was performed to assess the effect of each intervention on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 453 patients from four sites were followed for a median (IQR) of 17 (13) months. On multivariate analysis, mesh had no impact on hernia recurrence (odds ratio 0.993, 95% CI: 0.53-1.87, p = 0.982), and fundoplication type did not impact recurrence of postoperative GER symptoms (complete: odds ratio 0.607, 95% CI: 0.33-1.12, p = 0.112) or dysphagia (complete: odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI: 0.56-2.43, p = 0.677). CONCLUSION: During hiatal hernia repair, mesh and fundoplication type do not appear to have substantial impact on GER symptoms, dysphagia, or hernia recurrence. This multicenter study provides real-world evidence to support the findings of small RCTs.

Two-year Outcomes of Prehabilitation Among Obese Patients With Ventral Hernias: A Randomized Controlled Trial (NCT02365194).

OBJECTIVE: To determine if preoperative nutritional counseling and exercise (prehabilitation) improve outcomes in obese patients seeking ventral hernia repair (VHR)? SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Obesity and poor fitness are associated with complications following VHR. It is unknown if preoperative prehabilitation improves outcomes of obese patients seeking VHR. METHODS: This is the 2-year follow-up of a blinded randomized controlled trial from 2015 to 2017 at a safety-net academic institution. Obese patients (BMI 30-40) seeking VHR were randomized to prehabilitation versus standard counseling. Elective VHR was performed once preoperative requirements were met: 7% total body weight loss or 6 months of counseling and no weight gain. Primary outcome was percentage of hernia-free and complication-free patients at 2 years. Complications included recurrence, reoperation, and mesh complications. Primary outcome was compared using chi-square. We hypothesize that prehabilitation in obese patients with VHR results in more hernia- and complication-free patients at 2-years. RESULTS: Of the 118 randomized patients, 108 (91.5%) completed a median (range) follow-up of 27.3 (6.2-37.4) months. Baseline BMI (mean±SD) was similar between groups (36.8 ±â€Š2.6 vs 37.0 ±â€Š2.6). More patients in the prehabilitation group underwent emergency surgery (5 vs 1) or dropped out of the program (3 vs 1) compared to standard counseling (13.6% vs 3.4%, P = 0.094). Among patients who underwent surgery, there was no difference in major complications (10.2% vs 9.1%, P = 0.438). At 2-years, there was no difference in percentage of hernia-free and complication-free patients (72.9% vs 66.1%, P = 0.424, 1.14, 0.88-1.47). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in 2-year outcomes of obese patients seeking VHR who undergo prehabilitation versus standard care. Prehabilitation may not be warranted in obese patients undergoing elective VHR.Clinical Trial Registration: This trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02365194).

Reproducing Statistics Performed in Published Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) represent evidence at the lowest potential risk for bias. Clinicians in all specialties depend upon RCTs to guide patient care. Issues such as statistical discordance, or reporting statistical results that cannot be reproduced, should be uncommon. Our aim was to confirm the statistical reproducibility of published RCTs. METHODS: PubMed was searched using "randomized controlled trial." Studies were selected using a random number generator. Studies were included if the primary outcome could be reproduced using the data and statistical test reported in the manuscript. The reproduced p-value from our analysis and the published p-value were compared. Primary outcome was the number of studies that reported p-values that differed in statistical significance (crossed p-value=0.05) from the reproduction analysis. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, a beta of 0.80, an estimated rate of statistical discordance of 5% for RCTs, a total of at least 568 studies were required. RESULTS: Overall, 572 RCTs were selected involving six specialties. Of these, 45% were positive (p<0.05) studies. Eleven (2%) published results that differed from the reproduction analysis and crossed the p=0.05 threshold. All 11 studies were positive studies (while the reproduction analysis demonstrated p≥0.05). CONCLUSION: Less than 5% of published RCTs reported a discordant p-value that crossed the "p=0.05" threshold. Although the occurrence is uncommon, the existence of even one RCT publishing nonreproducible results is concerning. Future studies should seek to identify why some RCTs report discordant statistics and how to prevent this from occurring.

Review of SAGES GERD guidelines and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) developed evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The aim of this study is to evaluate guidelines lacking agreement among experts (grades B-D) or lacking support from randomized controlled trials (levels II-III). METHODS: Six guidelines were chosen for evaluation. A retrospective review of a multicenter database of patients undergoing fundoplication surgery for treatment of GERD between 2015 and 2020 was performed. Patients that underwent a concurrent gastrectomy or were diagnosed with pre-operative achalasia were excluded. Demographics, pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative variables were collected. Post-operative outcomes were evaluated based on selected SAGES guidelines. Outcomes were assessed using multivariable regression or stratified analysis for each guideline. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients from four institutions underwent surgery for the management of GERD with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 16 (13) months. Guidelines supported by our data were (1) robotic repair has similar short-term outcomes to laparoscopic repair, (2) outcomes in older patients are similar to outcomes of younger patients undergoing antireflux surgery, and (3) following laparoscopic antireflux surgery, dysphagia has been reported to significantly improve from pre-operative values. Guidelines that were not supported were (1) mesh reinforcement may be beneficial in decreasing the incidence of wrap herniation, (2) a bougie has been found to be effective, and (3) the long-term effectiveness of fundoplication in obese individuals (BMI > 30) has been questioned due to higher failure rates. CONCLUSION: Many SAGES GERD guidelines not receiving Grade A or Level I recommendation are supported by large, multicenter database findings. However, further studies at low risk for bias are needed to further refine these guidelines.

The Evidence Behind Robot-Assisted Abdominopelvic Surgery : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Use of robot-assisted surgery has increased dramatically since its advent in the 1980s, and nearly all surgical subspecialties have adopted it. However, whether it has advantages compared with laparoscopy or open surgery is unknown. PURPOSE: To assess the quality of evidence and outcomes of robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopy and open surgery in adults. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials that compared robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery with laparoscopy, open surgery, or both. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted study data and risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 50 studies with 4898 patients were included. Of the 39 studies that reported incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications, 4 (10%) showed fewer complications with robot-assisted surgery. The majority of studies showed no difference in intraoperative complications, conversion rates, and long-term outcomes. Overall, robot-assisted surgery had longer operative duration than laparoscopy, but no obvious difference was seen versus open surgery. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity was present among and within the included surgical subspecialties, which precluded meta-analysis. Several trials may not have been powered to assess relevant differences in outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is currently no clear advantage with existing robotic platforms, which are costly and increase operative duration. With refinement, competition, and cost reduction, future versions have the potential to improve clinical outcomes without the existing disadvantages. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42020182027).

Postoperative Work and Activity Restrictions After Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to assess what is known about convalescence following abdominal surgery. Through a review of the basic science and clinical literature, we explored the effect of physical activity on the healing fascia and the optimal timing for postoperative activity. BACKGROUND: Abdominal surgery confers a 30% risk of incisional hernia development. To mitigate this, surgeons often impose postoperative activity restrictions. However, it is unclear whether this is effective or potentially harmful in preventing hernias. METHODS: We conducted 2 separate systematic reviews using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The first assessed available basic science literature on fascial healing. The second assessed available clinical literature on activity after abdominal surgery. RESULTS: Seven articles met inclusion criteria for the basic science review and 22 for the clinical studies review. The basic science data demonstrated variability in maximal tensile strength and time for fascial healing, in part due to differences in layer of abdominal wall measured. Some animal studies indicated a positive effect of physical activity on the healing wound. Most clinical studies were qualitative, with only 3 randomized controlled trials on this topic. Variability was reported on clinician recommendations, time to return to activity, and factors that influence return to activity. Interventions designed to shorten convalescence demonstrated improvements only in patient-reported symptoms. None reported an association between activity and complications, such as incisional hernia. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified gaps in our understanding of what is best for patients recovering from abdominal surgery. Randomized controlled trials are crucial in safely optimizing the recovery period.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: One-year Results From a Prospective, Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) at 1-year postoperative. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite a relative lack of research at low risk for bias assessing robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR), the growth of RVHR has been rapid. We previously reported short-term results of the first randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR; there was no clear difference in clinical outcomes but increased operative time and cost with robotic repair. METHODS: Patients from a multicenter, blinded randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR were followed at 1 year. Outcomes included wound complication (surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, wound dehiscence), hernia occurrence including recurrence and port site hernia, readmission, reoperation, and patient-reported outcomes (functional status, pain, and satisfaction with repair and cosmesis). RESULTS: A total of 124 patients were randomized and 113 patients (91%; 60 robot, 53 laparoscopic) completed 1-year follow-up. Baseline demographics were similar in both groups. No differences were seen in wound complication (15% vs 15%; P = 0.899), hernia recurrence (7% vs 9%; P = 0.576), or readmission (2% vs 6%; P = 0.251). No patients underwent reoperation in the robotic arm, whereas 5 (9%) did in the laparoscopic arm (P = 0.020). No differences were seen in patient-reported outcomes. Both arms reported clinically significant improvements in functional status, low pain scores, and high satisfaction scores at 1-year post repair. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that robotic ventral hernia repair is safe when compared to laparoscopy. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Is robotic surgery feasible at a safety net hospital?

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery offers potential advantages of improved ability to complete procedures using a minimally invasive approach, recovery, and clinical outcomes. It has been previously established that safety net hospitals are outliers for surgical complications. As such, the adoption of new technology may not achieve the same outcomes as other institutions. We hypothesized that, compared to laparoscopic and open surgeries, robotic surgeries have fewer post-operative Clavien-Dindo complications at our safety net hospital. METHODS: All robotic surgeries performed from 2017 to 2019 at a single, safety net hospital were reviewed. Cases were matched 1:3 to laparoscopic controls. Surgeries commonly performed open were additionally matched 1:3 to open counterparts. The primary outcome was Clavien-Dindo complications at 90 days post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included inadvertent enterotomy, conversion to open, operative duration, wound class, surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), length of stay (LOS), reoperation, readmission, and recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 160 robotic surgeries were included and matched to 480 laparoscopic surgeries and 108 open surgeries. Open surgeries were associated with greater risk of Clavien-Dindo complication (OR = 2.7, p = 0.040, 95% confidence interval 1.0-6.9) than either robotic or laparoscopic surgeries. Robotic cases had increased operative duration when compared to laparoscopic (p < 0.001) but not open cases (p = 0.093). No difference was seen in enterotomy, conversion to open, SSI, SSO, LOS, reoperation, readmission, or recurrence between robotic and laparoscopic, and robotic and open cases. CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery is safe and feasible at a safety net hospital. Robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were associated with fewer Clavien-Dindo complications than open surgery, but no differences were seen between robotic and laparoscopic cases. Robotic surgery, compared to both laparoscopic and open surgery, had longer operative durations. Further studies are needed to assess the value of robotic as opposed to laparoscopic surgery in a safety net setting.

Primary Fascial Closure During Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair Improves Patient Quality of Life: A Multicenter, Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have reported conflicting results with primary fascial closure (PFC) versus bridged repair during laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine whether when evaluated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), PFC compared to bridged repair would improve patient quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In this blinded, multicenter RCT, patients scheduled for elective LVHR (hernia defects 3 to 10 cm on computed tomography scan) were randomized to PFC versus bridged repair. Primary outcome was change in QoL after LVHR using a validated, hernia-specific survey (1 = poor QoL and 100 = perfect QoL) that measures pain, function, cosmesis, and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were postoperative surgical site occurrences (including hematoma, seroma, surgical site infection, and wound dehiscence), abdominal eventration, and hernia recurrence. The trial was powered to detect a difference in change in QoL of 7 points between the study groups. Outcomes were compared with Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients underwent LVHR and 107 (83%) completed follow-up at 2 years. Patients from both groups were similar at baseline. On median follow-up of 24 months (range: 9-42), patients treated with LVHR-PFC had on average a 12-point higher improvement in QoL compared to bridged repair (improvement in QoL, 41.3 ± 31.5 vs 29.7 ±â€Š28.7, P value = 0.047). There were no differences in surgical site occurrence, eventration, or hernia recurrence between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective LVHR, the fascial defect should be closed. This is the first RCT demonstrating that PFC with LVHR significantly improves patient QoL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02363790).

Prevalence and Impact on Quality of Life of Occult Hernias among Patients Undergoing Computed Tomography.

BACKGROUND: With the widespread use of advanced imaging there is a need to quantify the prevalence and impact of hernias. We aimed to determine the prevalence of abdominal wall hernias among patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) scans and their impact on abdominal wall quality of life (AW-QOL). METHODS: Patients undergoing elective CT abdomen/pelvis scans were enrolled. Standardized physical examinations were performed by surgeons blinded to the CT scan results. AW-QOL was measured through the modified Activities Assessment Scale. On this scale, 1 is poor AW-QOL, 100 is perfect, and a change of 7 is the minimum clinically important difference. Three surgeons reviewed the CT scans for the presence of ventral or groin hernias. The number of patients and the median AW-QOL scores were determined for three groups: no hernia, hernias only seen on imaging (occult hernias), and clinically apparent hernias. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients were enrolled. Physical examination detected 62 (25.2%) patients with a hernia while CT scan revealed 107 (43.5%) with occult hernias. The median (interquartile range) AW-QOL of patients per group was no hernia = 84 (46), occult hernia = 77 (57), and clinically apparent hernia = 62 (55). CONCLUSIONS: One-fourth of individuals undergoing CT abdomen/pelvis scans have a clinical hernia, whereas nearly half have an occult hernia. Compared with individuals with no hernias, patients with clinically apparent or occult hernias have a lower AW-QOL (by 22 and seven points, respectively). Further studies are needed to determine natural history of AW-QOL and best treatment strategies for patients with occult hernias.

Gender Disparity Among Surgical Peer-Reviewed Literature.

BACKGROUND: Women remain under-represented in academic surgery despite increasing percentages of female surgeons and surgery residents. Publications and leadership positions are used for hiring and promoting academic surgeons. We sought to determine the disparity of female authorship when compared with male authors in surgical peer-reviewed publications. METHODS: PubMed was searched for surgical publications from the United States. Obstetrics and gynecology was selected as a control specialty owing to its history of high female representation. Thirteen other surgical specialties were randomly selected from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education specialty list. Manuscripts from four time periods, 2000-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015, and 2016-2017, were randomly selected, and the gender of the first and last authors was determined. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and Association of American Medical Colleges databases were used to determine women representation in surgery. Trends were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: In total, 560 manuscripts in 14 specialties were reviewed. In the control specialty, 51% of first authors were female compared with 18% of those in study specialties, and 39% of last authors were female compared with 11% of those in study specialties. No difference was found when comparing the gender of first (P-value = 0.393) and/or last authors (P-value = 0.281) with the proportion of female residents and attendings. CONCLUSIONS: Women surgeons publish research at a rate proportional to the number of females involved in that specialty. Disparities in leadership roles are unlikely explained by differences in publications. Instead, disparities are likely due to other reasons such as failure to attract women to academic surgery and failure to promote and mentor women surgeons into leadership positions.

Lack of Regulations and Conflict of Interest Transparency of New Hernia Surgery Technologies.

BACKGROUND: Medical devices introduced to market through the 510K process often have limited research of low quality and substantial conflict of interest (COI). By the time high-quality safety and effectiveness research is performed, thousands of patients may have already been treated by the device. Our aim was to systematically review the trends of outcomes, research quality, and financial relationships of published studies related to de-adopted meshes for ventral hernia repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature was systematically reviewed using PubMed to obtain all published studies related to three de-adopted meshes: C-QUR, Physiomesh, and meshes with polytetrafluoroethylene. Primary outcome was change in cumulative percentage of subjects with positive published outcomes. Secondary outcome was percentage of published manuscript with COI. RESULTS: A total of 723 articles were screened, of which, 129 were analyzed and included a total of 8081 subjects. Percentage of subjects with positive outcomes decreased over time for all groups: (1) C-QUR from 100% in 2009 to 22% in 2018, (2) Physiomesh from 100% in 2011 to 20% in 2018, and (3) polytetrafluoroethylene from 100% in 1979 to 49% in 2018. Authors of only 20% of articles self-reported no COI, most representing later publications and were more likely to show neutral or negative results. CONCLUSIONS: Among three de-adopted meshes, early publications demonstrated overly optimistic results followed by disappointing outcomes. Skepticism over newly introduced, poorly proven therapies is essential to prevent adoption of misleading practices and products. Devices currently approved under the 510K processes should undergo blinded, randomized controlled trials before introduction to the market.

Is the American College of Surgeons Online Communities a safe and useful venue to ask for surgical advice?

BACKGROUND: Many surgeons rely on the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Community Forums for advice on managing complex patients. Our objective was to assess the safety and usefulness of advice provided on the most popular surgical forum. METHODS: Overall, 120 consecutive, deidentified clinical threads were extracted from the General Surgery community in reverse chronological order. Three groups of three surgeons (mixed academic and community perspectives) evaluated the 120 threads for unsafe or dangerous posts. Positive and negative controls for safe and unsafe answers were included in 20 threads, and reviewers were blinded to their presence. Reviewers were free to access all online and professional resources. RESULTS: There were 855 unique responses (median 7, 2-15 responses per thread) to the 120 clinical threads/scenarios. The review teams correctly identified all positive and negative controls for safety. While 58(43.3%) of threads contained unsafe advice, the majority (33, 56.9%) were corrected. Reviewers felt that a there was a standard of care response for 62/120 of the threads of which 50 (80.6%) were provided by the responses. Of the 855 responses, 107 (12.5%) were considered unsafe/dangerous. CONCLUSION: The ACS Community Forums are generally a safe and useful resource for surgeons seeking advice for challenging cases. While unsafe or dangerous advice is not uncommon, other surgeons typically correct it. When utilizing the forums, advice should be taken as a congregate, and any single recommendation should be approached with healthy skepticism. However, social media such as the ACS Forums is self-regulating and can be an appropriate method for surgeons to communicate challenging problems.

Are online surgical discussion boards a safe and useful venue for surgeons to ask for advice? A review of the International Hernia Collaboration Facebook Group.

BACKGROUND: Social media is a growing medium for disseminating information among surgeons. The International Hernia Collaboration Facebook Group (IHC) is a widely utilized social media platform to share ideas and advice on managing patients with hernia-related diseases. Our objective was to assess the safety and utility of advice provided. METHODS: Overall, 60 consecutive de-identified clinical threads were extracted from the IHC in reverse chronological order. A group of three hernia specialists evaluated all threads for unsafe posts, unhelpful comments, and if an established evidence-based management strategy was provided. Positive and negative controls for safe and unsafe answers were included in seven threads and reviewers were blinded to their presence. Reviewers were free to access all online and professional resources (except the IHC). RESULTS: There were 598 unique responses (median 10, 1-26 responses per thread) to the 60 clinical threads/scenarios. The review team correctly identified all seven positive and negative controls. Most responses were safe (96.6%) but some were unhelpful (28.4%). For sixteen threads, the reviewers believed there was an established evidence-based answer; however, only six were provided. In addition, 14 responses were considered unsafe, but only four were corrected. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of responses were considered helpful; however, evidence-based management is typically not provided and unsafe recommendations often go uncontested. While the IHC allows wide dissemination of hernia-related surgical advice/discussions, surgeons should be cautious when using the IHC for clinical advice. Mechanisms to provide evidence-based management strategies and to identify unsafe advice are needed to improve quality within online forums and to prevent patient harm.