Clinician preferences in the treatment of acutely symptomatic hernia: the 'MASH' survey.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited high-quality evidence to guide the management of acute hernia presentation. The aim of this study was to survey surgeons to assess current trends in assessment, treatment strategy and operative decisions in the management of acutely symptomatic hernia. METHODS: A survey was developed with reference to current guidelines, and reported according to Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys guidelines. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Sheffield (UREC:034047). The survey explored practice in groin, umbilical/paraumbilical and incisional hernia presenting acutely. It captured respondent demographics, and preferences for investigations, treatment strategies and repair techniques for each hernia type, using a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Some 145 responses were received, of which 39 declared a specialist hernia practice. Essential investigations included urea and electrolytes (58.6%) and inflammatory markers (55.6%). Computed tomography scan of the abdomen was essential for assessment of incisional hernia (90.9%), but not for other hernia types. Bowel compromise drives early surgery, and increasing American Society of Anesthesiology score pushes towards non-operative management. Type of repair was driven by hernia contents, with increasing contamination associated with increased rates of suture repair. Where mesh was proposed in contaminated settings, biological types were preferred. There was variation in the potential use of laparoscopy for groin hernia. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a snapshot of current trends in the management of acutely symptomatic hernia. It demonstrates variation across aspects of assessment and repair technique. Additional data are required to inform practice in these areas.

Development and internal validation of clinical prediction models for outcomes of complicated intra-abdominal infection.

BACKGROUND: Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of patients with cIAI in a multicentre study and to develop clinical prediction models (CPMs) to help identify patients at risk of mortality or relapse. METHODS: A multicentre observational study was conducted from August 2016 to February 2017 in the UK. Adult patients diagnosed with cIAI were included. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to develop CPMs for mortality and cIAI relapse. The c-statistic was used to test model discrimination. Model calibration was tested using calibration slopes and calibration in the large (CITL). The CPMs were then presented as point scoring systems and validated further. RESULTS: Overall, 417 patients from 31 surgical centres were included in the analysis. At 90 days after diagnosis, 17.3 per cent had a cIAI relapse and the mortality rate was 11.3 per cent. Predictors in the mortality model were age, cIAI aetiology, presence of a perforated viscus and source control procedure. Predictors of cIAI relapse included the presence of collections, outcome of initial management, and duration of antibiotic treatment. The c-statistic adjusted for model optimism was 0.79 (95 per cent c.i. 0.75 to 0.87) and 0.74 (0.73 to 0.85) for mortality and cIAI relapse CPMs. Adjusted calibration slopes were 0.88 (95 per cent c.i. 0.76 to 0.90) for the mortality model and 0.91 (0.88 to 0.94) for the relapse model; CITL was -0.19 (95 per cent c.i. -0.39 to -0.12) and - 0.01 (- 0.17 to -0.03) respectively. CONCLUSION: Relapse of infection and death after complicated intra-abdominal infections are common. Clinical prediction models were developed to identify patients at increased risk of relapse or death after treatment, these now require external validation.

Is there a role for prophylactic mesh in abdominal wall closure after emergency laparotomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias are a common complication of emergency laparotomy and are associated with significant morbidity. Recent studies have found a reduction in incisional hernias when mesh is placed prophylactically during abdominal closure in elective laparotomies. This systematic review will assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic mesh placement in emergency laparotomy. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42018109283). Papers were dual screened for eligibility, and included when a comparison was made between closure with prophylactic mesh and closure with a standard technique, reported using a comparative design (i.e. case-control, cohort or randomised trial), where the primary outcome was incisional hernia. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias in non-randomised studies tool. A meta-analysis of incisional hernia rate was performed to estimate risk ratio using a random effects model (Mantel-Haenszel approach). RESULTS: 332 studies were screened for eligibility, 29 full texts were reviewed and 2 non-randomised studies were included. Both studies were biased due to confounding factors, as closure technique was based on patient risk factors for incisional hernia. Both studies found significantly fewer incisional hernias in the mesh groups [3.2% vs 28.6% (p < 0.001) and 5.9% vs 33.3% (p = 0.0001)]. A meta-analysis of incisional hernia risk favoured prophylactic mesh closure [risk ratio 0.15 (95% CI 0.6-0.35, p < 0.001)]. Neither study found an association between mesh and infection or enterocutaneous fistula. CONCLUSION: This review found that there are limited data to assess the effect or safety profile of prophylactic mesh in the emergency laparotomy setting. The current data cannot reliably assess the use of mesh due to confounding factors, and a randomised controlled trial is required to address this important clinical question.