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.

Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)-part 1.

Guidelines are increasingly determining the decision process in day-to-day clinical work. Guidelines describe the current best possible standard in diagnostics and therapy. They should be developed by an international panel of experts, whereby alongside individual experience, above all, the results of comparative studies are decisive. According to the results of high-ranking scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, statements and recommendations are formulated, and these are graded strictly according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines can therefore be valuable in helping particularly the young surgeon in his or her day-to-day work to find the best decision for the patient when confronted with a wide and confusing range of options. However, even experienced surgeons benefit because by virtue of a heavy workload and commitment, they often find it difficult to keep up with the ever-increasing published literature. All guidelines require regular updating, usually every 3 years, in line with progress in the field. The current Guidelines focus on technique and perioperative management of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and constitute the first comprehensive guidelines on this topic. In this issue of Surgical Endoscopy, the first part of the Guidelines is published including sections on basics, indication for surgery, perioperative management, and key points of technique. The next part (Part 2) of the Guidelines will address complications and comparisons between open and laparoscopic techniques. Part 3 will cover mesh technology, hernia prophylaxis, technique-related issues, new technologic developments, lumbar and other unusual hernias, and training/education.

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.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric lesions by using a master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot: an animal survival study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The feasibility of performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) using the Master and Slave Transluminal Endoscopic Robot (MASTER), a robotics-enhanced surgical system, has been shown in our previous study. This study aimed to further explore, in an animal survival study, the 2-week outcome of using MASTER to perform ESD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, ESD was performed on five female pigs (weighing 32.4 - 36.8 kg) under general anesthesia using the MASTER. The animals were observed for 2 weeks before being humanely killed for necropsy examination. The main outcome measures were completeness of resection, procedure-related complications, and survival at 2 weeks. RESULTS: The procedure was successfully completed in all five pigs. It took a mean of 21.8 minutes (range 6 - 39 minutes) to complete the ESD of each gastric lesion. All lesions were excised en bloc; the average dimension of the lesions was 77 mm (range 25 - 104 mm). One pig sustained a small intraoperative perforation which was identified and successfully clipped. After completion of the ESD procedures, all pigs survived well for 2 weeks. Necropsy was performed, with intraoperative gastroscopy identifying all the ESD sites as healed. Histopathologic examination showed all ESD sites had healed with partial epithelialization. Microbiological tests of the peritoneal fluid showed only microbes typically found in pigs. CONCLUSION: Performing ESD with MASTER was feasible and safe in this 2-week animal survival study.

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.

Natural orifice transgastric endoscopic wedge hepatic resection in an experimental model using an intuitively controlled master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot (MASTER).

BACKGROUND: The lack of triangulation of standard endoscopic devices limits the degree of freedom for surgical maneuvers during natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). This study explored the feasibility of adapting an intuitively controlled master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot (MASTER) the authors developed to facilitate wedge hepatic resection in NOTES. METHODS: The MASTER consists of a master controller, a telesurgical workstation, and a slave manipulator that holds two end-effectors: a grasper, and a monopolar electrocautery hook. The master controller is attached to the wrist and fingers of the operator and connected to the manipulator by electrical and wire cables. Movements of the operator are detected and converted into control signals driving the slave manipulator via a tendon-sheath power transmission mechanism allowing nine degrees of freedom. Using this system, wedge hepatic resection was performed through the transgastric route on two female pigs under general anesthesia. Entry into the peritoneal cavity was via a 10-mm incision made on the anterior wall of the stomach by the electrocautery hook. Wedge hepatic resection was performed using the robotic grasper and hook. Hemostasis was achieved with the electrocautery hook. After the procedure, the resected liver tissue was retrieved through the mouth using the grasper. RESULTS: Using the MASTER, transgastric wedge hepatic resection was successfully performed on two pigs with no laparoscopic assistance. The entire procedure took 9.4 min (range, 8.5-10.2 min), with 7.1 min (range, 6-8.2 min) spent on excision of the liver tissue. The robotics-controlled device was able to grasp, retract, and excise the liver specimen successfully in the desired plane. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated for the first time that the MASTER could effectively mitigate the technical constraints normally encountered in NOTES procedures. With it, the triangulation of surgical tools and the manipulation of tissue became easy, and wedge hepatic resection could be accomplished successfully without the need for assistance using laparoscopic instruments.

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.

Comparing T2 and T2-T3 ablation in thoracoscopic sympathectomy for palmar hyperhidrosis: a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Thoracoscopic sympathectomy is a useful therapeutic option for palmar hyperhidrosis. Surgeons differ in the level of the sympathetic chain ablated. This study aimed to compare the blockade of the T2 with levels T2 and T3 to verify the effectiveness of different ablation levels in relieving hyperhidrosis symptoms. METHODS: For patients undergoing bilateral thoracoscopic sympathectomy for palmar hyperhidrosis, T2-T3 ablation is performed bilaterally. In our series, 25 consecutive patients were blindly randomized to undergo unilateral T2 and T3 ablation followed by contralateral ablation of level T2 only. The patients were followed up and analyzed for comparison of symptoms bilaterally, compensatory hyperhidrosis, and levels of satisfaction postoperatively. RESULTS: The study group consisted of 25 patients with a male:female ratio of 3:2 and a mean age of 32 years (range, 19-50 years). The mean operative time was 35 min. The patients were followed up for a mean period of 23 months (range, 2-65 months). All 25 patients confirmed that their palmar sweating resolved postoperatively, with both palms equally dry. Of the 25 patients, 20 (80%) complained of compensatory hyperhidrosis, which also was bilaterally symmetric. The areas involved were trunk (80%), lower limbs (32%), and armpits (12%). Overall, 80% of the patients were very satisfied with the procedure. The remaining 20% experienced mild to moderate compensatory hyperhidrosis, which did not seem to affect their lifestyle. CONCLUSION: The findings show that T2 ablation in thoracoscopic sympathectomy for palmar hyperhidrosis is as effective as T2-T3 ablation in terms of symptomatic relief, recurrence, compensatory hyperhidrosis, and patient satisfaction.

Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia mesh repair: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: An incisional hernia develops in 3% to 13% of laparotomy incisions, with primary suture repair of ventral hernias yielding unsatisfactory results. The introduction of a prosthetic mesh to ensure abdominal wall strength without tension has decreased the recurrence rate, but open repair requires significant soft tissue dissection in tissues that are already of poor quality as well as flap creation, increasing complication rates and affecting the recurrence rate. A minimally invasive approach was applied to the repair pf ventral hernias, with the expectation of earlier recovery, fewer postoperative complications, and decreased recurrence rates. This prospective study was performed to objectively analyze and compare the outcomes after open and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. METHODS: The outcomes for 50 unselected patients who underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair were compared with those for 50 consecutive unselected patients who underwent open repair. The open surgical operations were performed by the Rives and Stoppa technique using prosthetic mesh, whereas the laparoscopic repairs were performed using the intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair technique in all cases. RESULTS: The study group consisted of 100 patients (82 women and 18 men) with a mean age of 55.25 years (range, 30-83 years). The patients in the two groups were comparable at baseline in terms of sex, presenting complaints, and comorbid conditions. The patients in laparoscopic group had larger defects (93.96 vs 55.88 cm2; p = 0.0023). The mean follow-up time was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.5640-23.0227 months). The mean surgery durations were 90.6 min for the laparoscopic repair and 93.3 min for the open repair (p = 0.769, nonsignificant difference). The mean postoperative stay was shorter for the laparoscopic group than for the open hernia group (2.7 vs 4.7 days; p = 0.044). The pain scores were similar in the two groups at 24 and 48 h, but significantly less at 72 h in the laparoscopic group (mean visual analog scale score, 2.9412 vs 4.1702; p = 0.001). There were fewer complications (24%) and recurrences (2%) among the patients who underwent laparoscopic repair than among those who had open repair (30% and 10%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate that laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in our experience was safe and resulted in shorter operative time, fewer complications, shorter hospital stays, and less recurrence. Hence, it should be considered as the procedure of choice for ventral hernia repair.