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.

Staged abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of complex gastrointestinal reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Literature on one- versus two-staged abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) with complex gastrointestinal reconstruction (GIR) is limited to single-arm case series with a focus on patients who complete all planned stages. Herein, we describe our experience with both one- and two-staged approaches to AWR/GIR, with attention to those who did not complete both intended stages. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted to identify patients who underwent a one- or two-stage approach to GIR/AWR from 2013 to 2020. The one-stage approach included GIR and definitive sublay mesh herniorrhaphy. The two-stage approach included Stage 1 (S1)-GIR and non-definitive herniorrhaphy and Stage 2 (S2)-definitive sublay mesh herniorrhaphy. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients underwent GIR/AWR: 20 (37.0%) underwent a planned 1-stage operation while 34 (63.0%) underwent S1 of a planned 2-stage approach. Patients assigned to the 2-stage approach were more likely to be smokers, have a history of mesh infection, have an enterocutaneous fistula, and a contaminated wound class (p<0.05). Of the 34 patients who underwent S1, 12 (35.3%) completed S2 during the mean follow-up period of 44 months while 22 (64.7%) did not complete S2. Of these, 10 (45.5%) developed hernia recurrence but did not undergo S2 secondary to elective nonoperative management (40%), pending preoperative optimization (30%), additional complex GIR (10%), hernia-related incarceration requiring emergent surgery (10%), or unrelated death (10%). No differences in outcome including SSI, SSO, readmission, and recurrence were noted between the 12 patients who completed the two-stage approach and the 20 patients who completed a one-stage approach, despite increased risk factors for complications in the 2-stage group (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Planned two-stage operations for GIR/AWR may distribute operative complexity and post-operative morbidity into separate surgical interventions. However, many patients may never undergo the intended definitive S2 herniorrhaphy. Future evaluation of 1- versus 2-stage GIR/AWR is needed to clarify indications for each approach. This work must also consider the frequent deviations from intended clinical course demonstrated in this study.

Retrorectus mesh reinforcement of ileostomy site fascial closure: stoma closure and reinforcement (SCAR) trial phase I/II results.

PURPOSE: Loop ileostomy (LI) is commonly employed during colorectal surgeries to reduce the consequences of anastomotic leak. Unfortunately, LI is associated with a 10-30% incisional hernia (IH) rate after closure. We hypothesized that prophylactic mesh reinforcement during LI takedown would safely prevent subsequent IH formation. METHODS: This single-center, phase I/II prospective study evaluated adult patients undergoing LI closure after left-sided colorectal cancer procedures. After LI closure, the posterior rectus sheath was mobilized and reapproximated with absorbable suture. A reduced-weight, macroporous, polypropylene mesh (Softmesh, BD) was placed in the retrorectus position to allow 3 cm of overlap and secured with fibrin sealant. The anterior fascia was closed with slowly absorbable suture. CT images obtained for cancer surveillance were reviewed by a radiologist blinded to the study intervention to evaluate for evidence of hernia or surgical site occurrence (SSO). RESULTS: Twenty patients were included with mean defect and mesh sizes of 11.2 cm2 and 64.2 cm2, respectively. Mean operative time for LI takedown and mesh augmented closure was 84 min with mesh implantation time being 16.4 min. Two patients were readmitted within 30 days for ileus, no patient required procedural intervention. Over a mean follow-up period of 20 ± 7 months, no SSO or hernias were observed clinically or on CT imaging. CONCLUSION: In our small series, retromuscular mesh reinforcement of LI closure appears feasible, safe and effective. This mesh reinforcement approach should be further investigated to evaluate its long-term effectiveness.

Comparative effectiveness of surgeon-performed transversus abdominis plane blocks and epidural catheters following open hernia repair with transversus abdominis release.

PURPOSE: Recovery protocols aim to limit narcotic administration following ventral hernia repair (VHR). However, little is known about the contribution of a protocol's individual components on patient outcomes. We previously reported that surgeon-performed transversus abdominis plane block (TAP-block) is more effective than ultrasound-guided TAP-block following VHR. This study evaluates the effectiveness of two postoperative analgesia modalities: epidural catheter and surgeon-performed TAP-block following VHR performed with transversus abdominis release (TAR). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on data prospectively collected between 2012 and 2019. All patients undergoing open VHR with TAR performed by a single surgeon were identified. Parastomal hernia repairs and any patients receiving ultrasound-guided TAP blocks or paraspinal blocks were excluded. Primary outcome was length of stay (LOS) with secondary outcomes including pain scores, opioid requirements, and 30-day morbidity. Linear regression was used to model LOS. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients met inclusion criteria (63 epidural, 72 TAP-block). The majority (67.4%) of patients were modified ventral hernia working group grade 2. The only statistically significant difference in postoperative pain scores between the groups was on postoperative day 2 (TAP block 3.19 versus epidural 4.11, p = 0.0126). LOS was significantly shorter in the TAP block group (4.7 versus 6.2 days, p = 0.0023) as was time to regular diet (3.2 versus 4.7 days, p < 0.0001). After controlling for confounders, epidural was associated with increased LOS by 1.3 days (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: Epidural use following VHR with TAR is associated with increased LOS and increased time to regular diet without reducing pain or opioid use when compared to surgeon-performed TAP block.

Endoscopic rescue of early percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy tube dislodgement.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement is one of the most common methods for establishing durable enteral access. Early PEG dislodgement occurs in < 5% of cases but typically prompts urgent surgical intervention to reestablish the gastrocutaneous tract and prevent intra-abdominal sepsis. To date, there is a single case report in the literature where successful endoscopic "rescue" of an early dislodged PEG tube negated the need for operative intervention. Here, we report our experience with a series of endoscopic PEG rescues for early dislodged PEG tubes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of cases was reviewed from two institutions. Patients with early PEG dislodgements underwent PEG rescue using a gastroscope and standard Ponsky "Pull" PEG techniques through the original tract. RESULTS: Eleven patients were identified from the database and underwent PEG rescue after early PEG dislodgement. Mean operative time was 68 min, and there were no complications related to PEG rescue. PEG rescue permitted safe re-establishment of the gastrostomy tract while avoiding laparoscopic or open surgical intervention in hemodynamically stable patients. All patients tolerated the procedure well and were able to resume use of the PEG tubes shortly after intervention. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic rescue represents a feasible noninvasive option for PEG tube replacement following early inadvertent PEG tube dislodgement in appropriate clinical settings.

Changes in the lateral abdominal wall following endoscopic subcutaneous anterior component separation.

PURPOSE: Although changes in lateral abdominal wall musculature after posterior component separation with transversus abdominis release have been investigated, the effects of endoscopic subcutaneous anterior component separation (ES-ACS) on postoperative muscle anatomy have not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in the lateral abdominal muscles after ES-ACS. METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) images of patients who underwent ES-ACS were retrospectively evaluated. Lateral abdominal wall thickness and external oblique displacement were measured at the level of fixed retroperitoneal structures. Measurements on the ES-ACS side were compared with those on the contralateral undivided side or with preoperative images in patients with bilateral procedures. RESULTS: Fifteen patients met the criteria for study inclusion. Most patients (n = 13, 86.7%) underwent unilateral ES-ACS. The most commonly performed procedure was laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh-plus hernia repair (n = 12, 80.0%; the remaining patients underwent open repair). The Mean defect width was 8.4 cm (range 6-15 cm). There was no difference in the thickness of the lateral abdominal musculature between ES-ACS and undivided sides. There was a significant lateral displacement of the external oblique muscle from the lateral edge of the rectus abdominis on the ES-ACS side (mean distance 3.7 cm; p = 0.0006). No midline hernia recurrences, iatrogenic linea semilunaris hernias, or lateral eventrations were observed during a mean follow-up period of 2.6 years (range 0.5-7.4 years). CONCLUSION: ES-ACS resulted in no atrophy of the lateral abdominal muscles in long-term CT follow-up. The procedure is a safe and effective adjunct to complex hernia repair in selected patients.

Direct visualization transversus abdominis plane blocks offer superior pain control compared to ultrasound guided blocks following open posterior component separation hernia repairs.

PURPOSE: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blockade with long-acting anesthetic can be used during open ventral hernia repair (VHR) with posterior component separation (PCS). TAP block can be performed under ultrasound guidance (US-TAP) or under direct visualization (DV-TAP). We hypothesized that US-TAP and DV-TAP provide equivalent postoperative analgesia following open VHR. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing open VHR with PCS who received TAP blocks with 266 mg of liposomal bupivacaine was performed. Data included demographics, comorbidities, length of stay (LOS), average postoperative day (POD) pain scores, and narcotic requirements (normalized to mg oral morphine). Statistical analysis utilized Student's t test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were identified (22 DV-TAP). There were no differences between the groups with respect to demographics, comorbidities, pre-operative pain medication usage (narcotic and non-narcotic) or herniorrhaphy-related data. The average POD0 pain score was lower for the DV-TAP group (2.35 vs 4.18; p = 0.019). Narcotic requirements on POD0 (48.0 vs 103.76 mg; p = 0.02), POD1 (128.45 vs 273.82 mg; p = 0.03), POD4 (54.29 vs 160.75 mg; p = 0.042), and during the complete hospitalization (408.52 vs 860.92 mg; p = 0.013) were lower in the DV-TAP group. There were no differences between initiation of diet or LOS. During the study, no changes were made to the VHR enhanced recovery pathway. CONCLUSIONS: DV-TAP blocks appear to provide superior analgesia in the immediate postoperative period. To achieve similar post-operative pain scores, patients in the US-TAP group required significantly more narcotic administration during their hospitalization. The study highlights DV-TAP as a valuable addition to VHR recovery pathways.

Outcomes of utilizing absorbable mesh as an adjunct to posterior sheath closure during complex posterior component separation.

BACKGROUND: A minority of patients undergoing posterior component separation (PCS) have abdominal wall defects that preclude complete reconstruction of the visceral sac with native tissue. The use of absorbable mesh bridges (AMB) to span such defects has not been established. We hypothesized that AMB use during posterior sheath closure of PCS is safe and provides favorable outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing PCS with AMB at two hernia centers. Main outcome measures included demographics, comorbidities, and post-operative complications. RESULTS: 36 patients were identified. Post-operative wound complications included five surgical site infections. At a median of 27 months, there were five recurrent hernias (13.9%), 2 of which were parastomal, but no episodes of intestinal obstruction/fistula. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of AMB for large posterior layer deficits results in acceptable rates of perioperative wound morbidity, effective PCS repairs, and does not increase intestinal morbidity or fistula formation.

Posterior component separation with transversus abdominis release successfully addresses recurrent ventral hernias following anterior component separation.

PURPOSE: Anterior component separation (ACS) with external oblique release for ventral hernia repair has a recurrence rate up to 32%. Hernia recurrence after prior ACS represents a complex surgical challenge. In this context, we report our experience utilizing posterior component separation with transversus abdominis muscle release (PCS/TAR) and retromuscular mesh reinforcement. METHODS: Patients with a history of recurrent hernia following ACS repaired with PCS/TAR were retrospectively identified from prospective databases collected at two large academic institutions. Patient demographics, hernia characteristics (using CT scan) and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with a history of ACS developed 22 (76%) midline, 3 (10%) lateral and 4 (14%) concomitant recurrences. Contamination was present in 11 (38%) of cases. All were repaired utilizing a PCS/TAR with retromuscular mesh placement (83% synthetic, 17% biologic) and fascial closure. Wound morbidity consisted of 13 (45%) surgical site occurrences including 8 (28%) surgical site infections. Five (17%) patients required 90-day readmission, and two (7%) were related to wound morbidity. One organ space infection with frank spillage of stool resulted in the only instance of mesh excision. This case also represents the only instance of recurrence (3%) with a mean follow-up of 11 (range 3-36) months. CONCLUSION: Patients with a history of an ACS who develop a recurrence represent a challenging clinical scenario with limited options for surgical repair. A PCS/TAR hernia repair achieves acceptable outcomes and may in fact be the best approach available.