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.

High-grade Vesicoureteral Reflux in Patients With Anorectal Malformation From the ARM-Net Registry: Is Our Screening Sufficient?

BACKGROUND: Vesico-ureteral reflux (VUR) is a common associated urological anomaly in anorectal malformation (ARM)-patients. High-grade VUR requires antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI's), renal scarring and -failure. The exact prevalence of high-grade VUR in ARM patients is unknown. Hence, the aim of this study was determining the incidence of high-grade VUR in ARM-patients, and its associated risk factors. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed using the ARM-Net registry, including data from 34 centers. Patient characteristics, screening for and presence of renal anomalies and VUR, sacral and spinal anomalies, and sacral ratio were registered. Phenotypes of ARM were grouped according to their complexity in complex and less complex. Multivariable analyses were performed to detect independent risk factors for high-grade (grade III-V) VUR. RESULTS: This study included 2502 patients (50 % female). Renal screening was performed in 2250 patients (90 %), of whom 648 (29 %) had a renal anomaly documented. VUR-screening was performed in 789 patients (32 %), establishing high-grade VUR in 150 (19 %). In patients with a normal renal screening, high-grade VUR was still present in 10 % of patients. Independent risk factors for presence of high-grade VUR were a complex ARM (OR 2.6, 95 %CI 1.6-4.3), and any renal anomaly (OR 3.3, 95 %CI 2.1-5.3). CONCLUSIONS: Although renal screening is performed in the vast majority of patients, only 32 % underwent VUR-screening. Complex ARM and any renal anomaly were independent risk factors for high-grade VUR. Remarkably, 10 % had high-grade VUR despite normal renal screening. Therefore, VUR-screening seems indicated in all ARM patients regardless of renal screening results, to prevent sequelae such as UTI's, renal scarring and ultimately renal failure. TYPE OF STUDY: Observational Cohort-Study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Five-Year Follow-Up of a Slowly Resorbable Biosynthetic P4HB Mesh (Phasix) in VHWG Grade 3 Incisional Hernia Repair.

Objective: To assess the 5-year recurrence rate of incisional hernia repair in Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) 3 hernia with a slowly resorbable mesh. Summary Background Data: Incisional hernia recurs frequently after initial repair. In potentially contaminated hernia, recurrences rise to 40%. Recently, the biosynthetic Phasix mesh has been developed that is resorbed in 12-18 months. Resorbable meshes might be a solution for incisional hernia repair to decrease short- and long-term (mesh) complications. However, long-term outcomes after resorption are scarce. Methods: Patients with VHWG grade 3 incisional midline hernia, who participated in the Phasix trial (Clinilcaltrials.gov: NCT02720042) were included by means of physical examination and computed tomography (CT). Primary outcome was hernia recurrence; secondary outcomes comprised of long-term mesh complications, reoperations, and abdominal wall pain [visual analogue score (VAS): 0-10]. Results: In total, 61/84 (72.6%) patients were seen. Median follow-up time was 60.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 55-64] months. CT scan was made in 39 patients (68.4%). A recurrence rate of 15.9% (95% confidence interval: 6.9-24.8) was calculated after 5 years. Four new recurrences (6.6%) were found between 2 and 5 years. Two were asymptomatic. In total, 13/84 recurrences were found. No long-term mesh complications and/or interventions occurred. VAS scores were 0 (IQR: 0-2). Conclusions: Hernia repair with Phasix mesh in high-risk patients (VHWG 3, body mass index >28) demonstrated a recurrence rate of 15.9%, low pain scores, no mesh-related complications or reoperations for chronic pain between the 2- and 5-year follow-up. Four new recurrences occurred, 2 were asymptomatic. The poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh is a safe mesh for hernia repair in VHWG 3 patients, which avoids long-term mesh complications like pain and mesh infection.

A narrative review on the non-surgical treatment of chronic postoperative inguinal pain: a challenge for both surgeon and anaesthesiologist.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is one of the most frequent clinical problems after inguinal hernia surgery. Despite more than two decades of research and numerous publications, no evidence exists to allow for chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) specific treatment algorithms. METHODS: This narrative review presents the current knowledge of the non-surgical management of CPIP and makes suggestions for daily practice. RESULTS: There is a paucity for high-level evidence of non-surgical options for CPIP. Different treatment options and algorithms have been published for chronic pain patients in the last decades. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: It is suggested that non-surgical treatment is introduced in the management of all CPIP patients. The overall approach to interventions should be pragmatic, tiered and multi-interventional, starting with least invasive and only moving to more invasive procedures upon lack of effect. Evaluation should be multidisciplinary and should take place in specialized centres. We strongly suggest to follow general guidelines for treatment of persistent pain and to build a database allowing for establishing CPIP specific evidence for optimal analgesic treatments.

Umbilical hernia repair in patients with cirrhosis: who, when and how to treat.

PURPOSE: Hernia management in patients with cirrhosis is a challenging problem, where indication, timing and type of surgery have been a subject of debate. Given the high risk of morbidity and mortality following surgery, together with increased risk of recurrence, a wait and see approach was often advocated in the past. METHODS: The purpose of this review was to provide an overview of crucial elements in the treatment of patients with cirrhosis and umbilical hernia. RESULTS: Perioperative ascites control is regarded as the major factor in timing of hernia repair and is considered the most important factor governing outcome. This can be accomplished by either medical treatment, ascites drainage prior to surgery or reduction of portal hypertension by means of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). The high incidence of perioperative complications and inferior outcomes of emergency surgery strongly favor elective surgery, instead of a "wait and see" approach, allowing for adequate patient selection, scheduled timing of elective surgery and dedicated perioperative care. The Child-Pugh-Turcotte and MELD score remain strong prognostic parameters and furthermore aid in identifying patients who fulfill criteria for liver transplantation. Such patients should be evaluated for early listing as potential candidates for transplantation and simultaneous hernia repair, especially in case of umbilical vein recanalization and uncontrolled refractory preoperative ascites. Considering surgical techniques, low-quality evidence suggests mesh implantation might reduce hernia recurrence without dramatically increasing morbidity, at least in elective circumstances. CONCLUSION: Preventing emergency surgery and optimizing perioperative care are crucial factors in reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with umbilical hernia and cirrhosis.

Slowly resorbable biosynthetic mesh: 2-year results in VHWG grade 3 hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: Information on the long-term performance of biosynthetic meshes is scarce. This study analyses the performance of biosynthetic mesh (Phasix™) over 24 months. METHODS: A prospective, international European multi-center trial is described. Adult patients with a Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) grade 3 incisional hernia larger than 10 cm2, scheduled for elective repair, were included. Biosynthetic mesh was placed in sublay position. Short-term outcomes included 3-month surgical site occurrences (SSO), and long-term outcomes comprised hernia recurrence, reoperation, and quality of life assessments until 24 months. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were treated with biosynthetic mesh. Twenty-two patients (26.2%) developed 34 SSOs, of which 32 occurred within 3 months (primary endpoint). Eight patients (11.0%) developed a hernia recurrence. In 13 patients (15.5%), 14 reoperations took place, of which 6 were performed for hernia recurrence (42.9%), 3 for mesh infection (21.4%), and in 7 of which the mesh was explanted (50%). Compared to baseline, quality of life outcomes showed no significant difference after 24 months. Despite theoretical resorption, 10.7% of patients reported presence of mesh sensation in daily life 24 months after surgery. CONCLUSION: After 2 years of follow-up, hernia repair with biosynthetic mesh shows manageable SSO rates and favorable recurrence rates in VHWG grade 3 patients. No statistically significant improvement in quality of life or reduction of pain was observed. Few patients report lasting presence of mesh sensation. Results of biosynthetic mesh after longer periods of follow-up on recurrences and remodeling will provide further valuable information to make clear recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02720042), March 25, 2016.

Reporting guideline for interventional trials of primary and incisional ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Primary and incisional ventral hernia trials collect unstandardized inconsistent data, limiting data interpretation and comparison. This study aimed to create two minimum data sets for primary and incisional ventral hernia interventional trials to standardize data collection and improve trial comparison. To support these data sets, standardized patient-reported outcome measures and trial methodology criteria were created. METHODS: To construct these data sets, nominal group technique methodology was employed, involving 15 internationally recognized abdominal wall surgeons and two patient representatives. Initially a maximum data set was created from previous systematic and panellist reviews. Thereafter, three stages of voting took place: stage 1, selection of the number of variables for data set inclusion; stage 2, selection of variables to be included; and stage 3, selection of variable definitions and detection methods. A steering committee interpreted and analysed the data. RESULTS: The maximum data set contained 245 variables. The three stages of voting commenced in October 2019 and had been completed by July 2020. The final primary ventral hernia data set included 32 variables, the incisional ventral hernia data set included 40 variables, the patient-reported outcome measures tool contained 25 questions, and 40 methodological criteria were chosen. The best known variable definitions were selected for accurate variable description. CT was selected as the optimal preoperative descriptor of hernia morphology. Standardized follow-up at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years was selected. CONCLUSION: These minimum data sets, patient-reported outcome measures, and methodological criteria have allowed creation of a manual for investigators aiming to undertake primary ventral hernia or incisional ventral hernia interventional trials. Adopting these data sets will improve trial methods and comparisons.

A systematic review of outcome reporting in incisional hernia surgery.

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.

META Score: An International Consensus Scoring System on Mesh-Tissue Adhesions.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the lack of consensus on postoperative mesh-tissue adhesion scoring leads to incomparable scientific results. The aim of this study was to develop an adhesion score recognized by experts in the field of hernia surgery. METHODS: Authors of three or more previously published articles on both mesh-tissue adhesion scores and postoperative adhesions were marked as experts. They were queried on seven items using a modified Delphi method. The items concerned the utility of adhesion scoring models, the appropriateness of macroscopic and microscopic variables, the range and use of composite scores or subscores, adhesion-related complications and follow-up length. This study comprised two questionnaire-based rounds and one consensus meeting. RESULTS: The first round was completed by 23 experts (82%), the second round by 18 experts (64%). Of those 18 experts, ten were able to participate in the final consensus meeting and all approved the final proposal. From a total of 158 items, consensus was reached on 90 items. The amount of mesh surface covered with adhesions, tenacity and thickness of adhesions and organ involvement was concluded to be a minimal set of variables to be communicated separately in each future study on mesh adhesions. CONCLUSION: The MEsh Tissue Adhesion scoring system is the first consensus-based scoring system with a wide backing of renowned experts and can be used to assess mesh-related adhesions. By including this minimal set of variables in future research interstudy comparability and objectivity can be increased and eventually linked to clinically relevant outcomes.

The impact of perioperative care on complications and short term outcome in ARM type rectovestibular fistula: An ARM-Net consortium study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of perioperative care interventions on postreconstructive complications and short-term colorectal outcome in patients with anorectal malformation (ARM) type rectovestibular fistula is unknown. METHODS: An ARM-Net consortium multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed including 165 patients with a rectovestibular fistula. Patient characteristics, perioperative care interventions, timing of reconstruction, postreconstructive complications and the colorectal outcome at one year of follow-up were registered. RESULTS: Overall complications were seen in 26.8% of the patients, of which 41% were regarded major. Differences in presence of enterostomy, timing of reconstruction, mechanical bowel preparation, antibiotic prophylaxis and postoperative feeding regimen had no impact on the occurrence of overall complications. However, mechanical bowel preparation, antibiotic prophylaxis ≥48 h and postoperative nil by mouth showed a significant reduction in major complications. The lowest rate of major complications was found in the group having these three interventions combined (5.9%). Multivariate analyses did not show independent significant results of any of the perioperative care interventions owing to center-specific combinations. At one year follow-up, half of the patients experienced constipation and this was significantly higher among those with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in perioperative care interventions do not seem to impact the incidence of overall complications in a large cohort of European rectovestibular fistula-patients. Mechanical bowel preparation, antibiotic prophylaxis ≥48 h, and postoperative nil by mouth showed the least major complications. Independency could not be established owing to center-specific combinations of interventions. TYPE OF STUDY: Treatment study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

A post-market, prospective, multi-center, single-arm clinical investigation of Phasix™ mesh for VHWG grade 3 midline incisional hernia repair: a research protocol.

BACKGROUND: Incisional heia is a frequent complication of midline laparotomy. The use of mesh in hernia repair has been reported to lead to fewer recurrences compared to primary repair. However, in Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) Grade 3 hernia patients, whose hernia is potentially contaminated, synthetic mesh is prone to infection. There is a strong preference for resorbable biological mesh in contaminated fields, since it is more able to resist infection, and because it is fully resorbed, the chance of a foreign body reaction is reduced. However, when not crosslinked, biological resorbable mesh products tend to degrade too quickly to facilitate native cellular ingrowth. Phasix™ Mesh is a biosynthetic mesh with both the biocompatibility and resorbability of a biological mesh and the mechanical strength of a synthetic mesh. This multi-center single-arm study aims to collect data on safety and performance of Phasix™ Mesh in Grade 3 hernia patients. METHODS: A total of 85 VHWG Grade 3 hernia patients will be treated with Phasix™ Mesh in 15 sites across Europe. The primary outcome is Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO) including hematoma, seroma, infection, dehiscence and fistula formation (requiring intervention) through 3 months. Secondary outcomes include recurrence, infection and quality of life related outcomes after 24 months. Follow-up visits will be at drain removal (if drains were not placed, then on discharge or staple removal instead) and in the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 12th, 18th and 24th month after surgery. CONCLUSION: Based on evidence from this clinical study Depending on the results this clinical study will yield, Phasix™ Mesh may become a preferred treatment option in VHWG Grade 3 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on March 25, 2016 on clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02720042 .

EHS clinical guidelines on the management of the abdominal wall in the context of the open or burst abdomen.

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.

EHS clinical guidelines on the management of the abdominal wall in the context of the open or burst abdomen

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. 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. 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. 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.

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

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.

European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias

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.

Meta-analysis on Materials and Techniques for Laparotomy Closure: The MATCH Review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate closure materials and suture techniques for emergency and elective laparotomies. The primary outcome was incisional hernia after 12 months, and the secondary outcomes were burst abdomen and surgical site infection. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted until September 2017. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated by at least 3 assessors using critical appraisal checklists. Meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 23 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. There was no evidence from RCTs using the same suture technique in both study arms that any suture material (fast-absorbable/slowly absorbable/non-absorbable) is superior in reducing incisional hernias. There is no evidence that continuous suturing is superior in reducing incisional hernias compared to interrupted suturing. When using a slowly absorbable suture for continuous suturing in elective midline closure, the small bites technique results in significantly less incisional hernias than a large bites technique (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19, 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: There is no high-quality evidence available concerning the best suture material or technique to reduce incisional hernia rate when closing a laparotomy. When using a slowly absorbable suture and a continuous suturing technique with small tissue bites, the incisional hernia rate is significantly reduced compared with a large bites technique.

European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias.

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.

Triclosan-coated sutures and surgical site infection in abdominal surgery: the TRISTAN review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a frequent complication of abdominal surgery causing increased morbidity. Triclosan-coated sutures are recommended to reduce SSI. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the rate of SSI in abdominal surgery when using triclosan-coated or uncoated sutures for fascial closure. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science including publications until August 2017. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated using critical appraisal checklists from SIGN. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis were performed with Review Manager v5.3 and TSA software, respectively. RESULTS: Eight RCTs on abdominal wall closure were included in the meta-analysis. In an overall comparison including both triclosan-coated Vicryl and PDS sutures for fascial closure, triclosan-coated sutures were superior in reducing the rate of SSI (OR 0.67; 0.46-0.98). When evaluating PDS sutures separately, there was no effect of triclosan-coating on the rate of SSI (OR 0.85; 0.61-1.17). Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size (RIS) of 797 patients for triclosan-coated Vicryl sutures was almost reached with an accrued information size (AIS) of 795 patients. For triclosan-coated PDS sutures an AIS of 2707 patients was obtained, but the RIS was estimated to be 18,693 patients. CONCLUSION: Triclosan-coated Vicryl sutures for abdominal fascial closure decrease the risk of SSI significantly and based on the trial sequential analysis further RCTs will not change that outcome. There was no effect on SSI rate with the use of triclosan-coated PDS sutures for abdominal fascial closure, and it is unknown whether additional RCTs will change that.