Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP): an underestimated problem after incisional hernia treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is a potential long-term problem following open incisional hernia repair which may affect the quality of life of patients despite successful anatomical repair of the hernia. The aim of this manuscript was to identify the incidence and outcome of patients following open incisional hernia repair in respect of risk factors to develop CPSP. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis of patients who underwent open incisional hernia repair between 2015 and 2021 was performed. Pre-existing conditions (e.g., diabetes mellitus and malignancy), hernia complexity, postoperative complications, and postoperative pain medication were analyzed using the local database. Quality of life and CPSP were assessed using the EuraHS Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 182 cases were retrospectively included in a detailed analysis based on the complete EuraHS (QoL) questionnaire. During the average follow-up period of 46 months, this long-term follow-up revealed a 54.4% incidence of CPSP and including a rate of 14.8% for severe CPSP (sCPSP) after open incisional hernia surgery. The complexity of the hernia and the demographic variables were not different between the group with and without CPSP. Patients with CPSP reported significantly reduced QoL. The analgesics score which includes the need of pain medication in the initial days after surgery was significantly higher in patients with CPSP than in those without (no CPSP: 2.86 vs. CPSP: 3.35; p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: The presence of CPSP after open incisional hernia repair represents a frequent and underestimated long-term problem which has been not been recognized to this extent before. CPSP impairs QoL in these patients. Patients at risk to develop CPSP can be identified in the perioperative setting by the need of high doses of pain medication using the analgesics score. Possibly timely adjustment of pain medication, even in the domestic setting, could alleviate the chronicity or severity of CPSP.

Normal width of the linea alba, prevalence, and risk factors for diastasis recti abdominis in adults, a cross-sectional study.

AIM: The prevalence and definition of diastasis recti abdominis (DRA) is under debate. This retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated the interrectal distance and the prevalence of DRA in computed tomography (CT) in an asymptomatic population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing CT scans for suspected appendicitis or kidney stones from 01/2016 to 12/2018 were screened retrospectively to participate. A study population with equal distribution according to gender and age (18-90 years) was generated (n = 329 patients) and the interrectal distance was measured at six reference points. RESULTS: DRA (defined as > 2 cm at 3 cm above the umbilicus) was present in 57% of the population. The 80th percentile of the interrectal distance was 10 mm at the xiphoid (median 3 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0-19 mm), 27 mm halfway from xiphoid to umbilicus (median 17 mm, 95% CI 0-39 mm), 34 mm at 3 cm above the umbilicus (median 22 mm, 95% CI 0-50 mm), 32 mm at the umbilicus (median 25 mm, 95% CI 0-45 mm), 25 mm at 2 cm below the umbilicus (median 14 mm, 95% CI 0-39 mm), and 4 mm halfway from umbilicus to pubic symphysis (median 0 mm, 95% CI 0-19 mm). In the multivariate analysis, higher age (p = 0.001), increased body mass index (p < 0.001), and parity (p < 0.037) were independent risk factors for DRA, while split xiphoid, tobacco abuse, and umbilical hernia were not. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of DRA is much higher than commonly estimated (57%). The IRD 3 cm above the umbilicus may be considered normal up to 34 mm. To avoid over-treatment, the definition of DRA should be revised.

Validation and educational impact study of the NANEP high-fidelity simulation model for open preperitoneal mesh repair of umbilical hernia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop, validate and analyze the educational impact of a high-fidelity simulation model for open preperitoneal mesh repair of an umbilical hernia. The number of surgical simulators available for training residents is limited. Primary for ethical reasons and secondary for the emerging pay-per-quality policies, practicing-on simulators rather than patients is considered gold standard. Validated full-procedural surgical models will become more and more important in training residents. Such models may assure that evidence-based standards regarding technical aspects of the procedures become integral part of the curriculum. Furthermore, they can be employed as a quality control of residents' skills (Fonseca et al. in J Surg Educ 70:129-137, 2013). METHODS: In a repeated measures design, medical students, residents in their last year of training and attending surgeons performed an open preperitoneal mesh repair on the NANEP model [NANEP stands for the German acronym Nabelhernien-Netzimplatation-Präperitonal (English: Umbilical hernia mesh implantation preperitoneal)]. Subjects were categorized as "Beginners" (internship students) or "Experts" (residents and surgeons). Content validity was analyzed by criteria of subject-matter-experts. Blinded raters assessed surgical skills by means of the Competency Assessment Tool (CAT) using the online platform "CATLIVE". Differential validity was measured by group differences. Proficiency gain was analyzed by monitoring the learning curve (Gallagher et al. in Ann Surg 241:364-372, 2005). Post-operative examination of the simulators shed light on criterion validity. RESULTS: The NANEP model-proofed content and construct-valid significant Bonferroni-corrected differences were found between beginners and experts (p < 0.05). Beginners showed a significant learning increase from the first to the second surgery (p < 0.05). Post-operative examination data confirmed criterion validity. CONCLUSION: The NANEP model is an inexpensive, simple and efficient simulation model. It has highly realistic features, it has been shown to be of high-fidelity, full-procedural and benchtop-model. The NANEP model meets the main needs of surgical educational courses at the beginning of residency.

International classification of abdominal wall planes (ICAP) to describe mesh insertion for ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Nomenclature for mesh insertion during ventral hernia repair is inconsistent and confusing. Several terms, including 'inlay', 'sublay' and 'underlay', can refer to the same anatomical planes in the indexed literature. This frustrates comparisons of surgical practice and may invalidate meta-analyses comparing surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to establish an international classification of abdominal wall planes. METHODS: A Delphi study was conducted involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall surgeons. Different terms describing anterior abdominal wall planes were identified via literature review and expert consensus. The initial list comprised 59 possible terms. Panellists completed a questionnaire that suggested a list of options for individual abdominal wall planes. Consensus on a term was predefined as occurring if selected by at least 80 per cent of panellists. Terms scoring less than 20 per cent were removed. RESULTS: Voting started August 2018 and was completed by January 2019. In round 1, 43 terms (73 per cent) were selected by less than 20 per cent of panellists and 37 new terms were suggested, leaving 53 terms for round 2. Four planes reached consensus in round 2, with the terms 'onlay', 'inlay', 'preperitoneal' and 'intraperitoneal'. Thirty-five terms (66 per cent) were selected by less than 20 per cent of panellists and were removed. After round 3, consensus was achieved for 'anterectus', 'interoblique', 'retro-oblique' and 'retromuscular'. Default consensus was achieved for the 'retrorectus' and 'transversalis fascial' planes. CONCLUSION: Consensus concerning abdominal wall planes was agreed by 20 internationally recognized surgeons. Adoption should improve communication and comparison among surgeons and research studies.

ANTECEDENTES: La nomenclatura de la inserción de una malla para la reparación de una hernia incisional ventral (ventral hernia, VH) es inconsistente y confusa. En la literatura indexada se usan varios términos, tales como 'inlay', 'sublay', y 'underlay' que pueden referirse a los mismos planos anatómicos. Este hecho frustra las comparaciones de técnicas quirúrgicas e invalida los metaanálisis que comparan resultados quirúrgicos en función del plano de inserción de la malla. En consecuencia, el objetivo de este estudio fue establecer una clasificación internacional de los planos de la pared abdominal (International Classification of Abdominal Wall Planes, ICAP). MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio Delphi, en el que participaron 20 cirujanos de pared abdominal reconocidos internacionalmente. Se identificaron diferentes términos que describían los planos de la pared abdominal anterior mediante la revisión de la literatura y el consenso de expertos. La lista inicial incluía 59 términos posibles. Los panelistas completaron un cuestionario que sugería una lista de opciones para los planos individuales de la pared abdominal. El consenso sobre un término fue predefinido cuando dicho término había sido seleccionado por ≥ 80% de panelistas. Se eliminaron los términos con una puntuación < 20%. RESULTADOS: La votación comenzó en agosto de 2018 y se completó en enero de 2019. Durante la Ronda 1, 43 (73%) términos fueron seleccionados por < 20% de los panelistas y se sugirieron 37 términos nuevos, dejando 53 términos para la Ronda 2. Cuatro planos alcanzaron un consenso en la Ronda 2 con los términos 'onlay', 'inlay', 'pre-peritoneal' e 'intra-peritoneal'. Treinta y cinco (66%) términos fueron seleccionados por < 20% de los panelistas y fueron eliminados. Después de la Ronda 3, se logró un consenso para 'anterectus' (ante-recto), 'interoblique' (inter-oblicuo), 'retrooblique' (retro-oblicuo) y 'retromuscular'. Se alcanzó un consenso por defecto para los planos 'retrorectus' (retro-recto) y 'transversalis fascial' (fascial transverso). CONCLUSIÓN: La ICAP ha sido desarrollada por el consenso de 20 cirujanos reconocidos internacionalmente. Su implementación debería mejorar la comunicación y la comparación entre cirujanos y estudios de investigación.

Incisional hernia repair in a high-fidelity silicone model for open retro-muscular mesh implantation with preparation of the fatty triangle: validation and educational impact study.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia repair requires detailed anatomic knowledge. Regarding median subxiphoidal hernias, the proper preparation of the fatty triangle is challenging. To foster proficiency-based training, a cost-efficient model for open median retromuscular mesh repair resembling the human body was developed, including the main anatomical structures related to the procedure. The aim is to create and validate a high-fidelity model on open retromuscular mesh repair suitable for "training before doing". MATERIALS AND METHODS: Different types of fabrics for imitation of connective tissue and 2-component silicones were used to construct the incisional hernia model. Sample size for validation of the model was determined by a triangular testing approach. Operations from six beginners and six experts were assessed by three blinded-raters. Reliability and construct-validity were evaluated on a behaviorally anchored rating scale (highest score: 4) for the criteria: "instrument use", "tissue handling", "near misses and errors", and "end-product quality". RESULTS: The model authentically mimicked an open median retromuscular mesh repair. Participants considered the procedure realistic. Reliability was excellent, ranging from 0.811 to 0.974 for "end-product quality", and "tissue handling" respectively. Construct-validity was confirmed with experts significantly outperforming beginners in the "use of instruments" (Mbeg. = 2.33, Mexp. = 3.94, p < 0.001), "tissue handling" (Mbeg. = 2.11, Mexp. = 3.72, p < 0.001), "near misses and errors" (Mbeg. = 2.67, Mexp. = 3.67, p < 0.001), and "end-product quality" (Mbeg. = 2.78, Mexp. = 3.72, p < 0.001). Criterion-validity revealed a paradox effect: beginners performed significantly better than experts (p < 0.05) when preparing the fatty triangle. CONCLUSIONS: The model covers all relevant aspects involved in median-open retromuscular incisional hernia mesh repair. Performance differences between beginners and experts confirm construct-validity and thereby realism of the model. It enables to efficiently improve and practice technical skills of the demanding surgery.

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 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.

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.

Pitfalls in interpretation of large registry data on hernia repair.

Since more and more hernia registries are being created and the number of patients included is increasing, knowledge of potential pitfalls in interpretation of registry data has to be known and dealt with. This invited commentary is to discuss some of these topics. The aim is to present and discuss the main shortcoming of register-based studies and how to deal with these problems, to contribute to more validated results and eventually improved surgical outcomes.

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.

The incidence of incisional hernia after aortic aneurysm is not higher than after benign colorectal interventions: A retrospective control-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) have most probably an inflammatory origin, whereby the elastica is the layer actually involved. In the past, collagen weackness was supposed to be the shared cause of both, AAA and incisional hernias. Since the development of new techniques of closure of the abdominal wall over the last decade, collagen deficency seems to play only a secondary etiologic role. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate whether the incidence of incisional hernia following laparotomy due to AAA differs from that of colorectal interventions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective control matched cohort study. After screening of 403 patients with colorectal interventions and 96 patients with AAA, 27 and 72 patients, respectively were included. The match criteria for inclusion of patients with colorectal interventions were: age, benign underlying disease and median xiphopubic laparotomy. The primary endpoint was the incidence of an incisional hernia. The secondary endpoints were the risk profile, length of stay in the intensive care unit and postoperative complications. Data analysis was carried in the consecutive collective from 2006 to 2008. RESULTS: In the group with AAA the mean follow-up was 34.5±18.1 months and in the group with colorectal interventions 35.7±21.4 months. The incidence of incisional hernias showed no significant differences between the two groups. In the AAA group 10 patients (13.8%) developed an incisional hernia in contrast to 7 patients in the colorectal intervention group (25.9%). CONCLUSIONS: In our collective patients with AAA did not show an increased incidence of incisional hernia in comparison to patients with colorectal interventions with comparable size of the laparotomy access and age. The quality of closure of the abdominal wall seems to be an important factor for the prevention of incisional hernia.

[Perioperative handling of anticoagulation]. / Perioperativer Umgang mit Antikoagulation.

A growing number of patients in Germany receive a long-term prophylactic anticoagulation with phenprocoumone or one of the novel direct oral anticoagulants (NOAC), such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban. The most common indication for an oral anticoagulant therapy is atrial fibrillation (approximately 75%) where the anticoagulant therapy can reduce the risk for an embolic event, particularly stroke by 60%. Operations carried out during such a therapy can result in major bleeding complications. On the other hand, suspending anticoagulant therapy can lead to an increased risk of thromboembolisms. Thus, the preoperative assessment should address the bleeding risk of the planned operation, the individual risk of thromboembolism, as well as other factors, such as patient age and renal function. If the individual assessment shows a substantial risk of perioperative bleeding when anticoagulant treatment is continued and a substantial risk of thromboembolism if the treatment is suspended, then a perioperative bridging, for example with low molecular weight heparin, is necessary. Perioperative bridging also leads to an increased risk of perioperative bleeding. Thus, undifferentiated bridging for all patients with atrial fibrillation with anticoagulant treatment is not recommended. Instead, the indications for a perioperative bridging should be decided according to individual risk profiles.

[The use of platelet aggregation inhibitors in the perioperative period]. / Perioperativer Umgang mit Thrombozytenaggregationshemmern.

Every year 16 million operations are performed in Germany. Many patients take platelet aggregation inhibitors as a primary or secondary prevention to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. Especially during the perioperative period, this risk reduction is relevant due to an increased risk for cardiac events (in approximately 6.2% of operations). As a result of a presumed increased risk of bleeding, platelet aggregation inhibitors are often paused perioperatively. Thus, doctors must decide on a risk-adapted basis whether the medication can be continued perioperatively and, if so, with what risks. If acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) treatment is solely used as primary prevention it can be paused during the perioperative period, whereas ASA treatment for secondary prevention should only be paused for operations within narrow confines. When pausing ASA, a sufficient time interval should be maintained before the operation. Furthermore, the ASA withdrawal syndrome with an increased predisposition for clotting is an important phenomenon to be considered. Additionally, the perioperative handling of dual platelet aggregation inhibition needed after coronary stent implantation should be addressed. Due to an increased risk for in-stent thrombosis, dual platelet aggregation inhibition is only reluctantly paused. Emergency surgery must, if not otherwise possible, be carried out even if the dual platelet aggregation inhibition is not paused; however, if the risk for intraoperative bleeding is too high and the risk of an in-stent thrombosis is lower in comparison, P2Y12 inhibitors (e.g. clopidogrel) should be paused and the operation carried out solely with ASA therapy.

[Perioperative handling of immunosuppressive therapy]. / Perioperativer Umgang mit immunsuppressiver Therapie.

Every year 16 million operations are performed in Germany. Many patients have an autoimmune disorder, for example rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis or chronic inflammatory bowel disease, which requires treatment. Immunosuppressants are widely applied. Physicians must make a risk-adapted decision whether the immunosuppressant medication can be continued perioperatively or if certain drugs must be paused and if so, with what risks. The handling of immunosuppressants during the perioperative period is very relevant as many patients, for example with rheumatoid arthritis are in need of a hip or knee replacement or patients with inflammatory bowel disease need an operation due to the chronic illness. The interruption of an immunosuppressant therapy should be discussed in an interdisciplinary board according to the underlying disease, because the continuation of immunosuppressants perioperatively can lead to an increased rate of complications, especially wound healing disorders. If a patient is on a glucocorticoid therapy the following must be considered: during the perioperative period the body has an increased demand for glucocorticoids due to the stress reaction. If glucocorticoids are administered in a dosage of more than 7.5 mg/day equivalent of prednisolone this stress reaction is inhibited. Thus, in these cases a perioperative substitution with hydrocortisone is recommended.

[Perioperative handling of antidiabetic drugs]. / Perioperativer Umgang mit Antidiabetika.

Diabetes mellitus is the most frequent metabolic disorder in the western world with a prevalence of 3% in adults under 65 years of age and 14.3% in adults over 65 years of age. Due to the increasing age of our population, the number of patients taking oral antidiabetic drugs has increased. Thus, operating physicians must make a risk-adapted decision whether the medication can be continued perioperatively or if certain drugs must be paused, and if so, with what risks. Operative interventions can lead to a number of metabolic shifts, which change the normal glucose metabolism. Hyperglycemia in the perioperative period is a risk factor for postoperative sepsis, dysfunction of the endothelium, cerebral ischemia and poor wound healing. Due to perioperative fasting oral antidiabetic medication can lead to severe hypoglycemia if taken during this period. This leads to an increased morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period and extends the duration of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) as well as the overall hospital stay. Oral antidiabetic medication should be paused on the day of the operation and restarted in line with the gradual postoperative return to solid food. Especially metformin, the most commonly used medication in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, should be paused perioperatively due to the severe side effect of lactate acidosis.

[The use of tumor therapeutics in the perioperative period]. / Perioperativer Umgang mit antitumoralen Medikamenten.

In 2010 Germany had 447,300 new cases of cancer. From 2000 to 2010 the incidence of cancer increased by 21% in men and by 14% in women. The change in the age structure with an aging population is the crucial influencing factor. Various cancer types can now be treated by oral antitumor agents used as a chronic medication. Physicians must decide whether the oral antitumor agents can be continued perioperatively or if certain drugs must be paused and if so, with what risks. Oral antitumor agents are a very heterogeneous group of medication. The use of oral antitumor agents during the perioperative period has not been thoroughly examined, but most often a perioperative interruption is recommended. In general, poor wound healing is a frequent complication of this group of medication. The handling of oral antitumor agents in the perioperative period should be based on an individual decision with consideration of the desired therapy goal as well as the individual prognosis. In general, all oral antitumor agents are chronic medication and are continued until a loss of efficacy or intolerable side effects occur. A potentially curative therapy should be paused for the shortest possible time in order not to jeopardize the remission already achieved. Furthermore, generally accepted recommendations concerning the interval between chemotherapy and a planned operation have not yet been established. A rough rule of thumb could be to plan the operation after the regeneration of the blood count or at the same point in time of the next planned chemotherapy.

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.

Risk-adjusted procedure tailoring leads to uniformly low complication rates in ventral and incisional hernia repair: a propensity score analysis and internal validation of classification criteria.

BACKGROUND: The usual approach in hernia surgery is to select the ideal repair method independent of the patient's characteristics. In the present study, we change the approach to ask which technique is best for the individual patient`s risk profile. For this, two criteria are important: does the patient need reconstruction of the abdominal wall? or does he or she need treatment of symptoms without being exposed to unnecessarily high perioperative risks? METHODS: In a heuristic selection procedure, 486 consecutive patients were classified according to their characteristics as low-risk or high-risk for postoperative complications. Low-risk patients preferentially underwent open abdominal wall reconstruction with mesh (MFR + mesh), high-risk patients mainly a bridging-mesh procedure, either by laparoscopic (Lap.-IPOM) or open approach (Open-IPOM). Primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative complications. Secondary outcome was the recurrence-free interval. The propensity score was used for covariate adjustment analyzing recurrence rate as well as postoperative complications using Cox regression and logistic regression, respectively. RESULTS: Comparison of all surgical procedures showed risk factors had no independent influence on occurrence of complications (p = 0.110). Hernial gap width was an independent factor for occurrence of complications (p = 0.002). Propensity score adjustment revealed Lap.-IPOM to have a significantly higher recurrence rate than MFR + mesh (HR 2.367, 95% CI 1.123-4.957, p = 0.024). Three or more risk factors were protective against recurrence (HR 0.454, 95% CI 0.221-0.924, p = 0.030). In the univariate Cox regression analysis for recurrence, age >50 years was a protective prognostic factor (HR 0.412, 95% CI 0.245-0.702, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The classification criteria applied were internally validated. The heuristic algorithm ensured that patients at high-risk of complications did not have a higher perioperative complication rate than patients at low-risk.

Prophylactic meshes in the abdominal wall.

BACKGROUND: There is a high incidence of incisional hernias in specific high-risk patient populations. For these patients, the prophylactic placement of mesh during closure of the abdominal wall incision has been investigated in several prospective studies. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to summarize and synthetize the currently available evidence on prophylactic meshes in a narrative review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews were performed on the use of prophylactic meshes in different indications: midline laparotomies, stoma reversal wounds, and permanent stoma. RESULTS: High-quality data from randomized trials shows that prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh implantation is safe and effective, both in prevention of incisional hernias after midline laparotomies and during construction of an elective end colostomy. It should be considered in patients with a high risk for incisional hernia development, such as those receiving open abdominal aortic aneurysm, obesity, or colorectal cancer surgery. It is strongly recommended for construction of an elective permanent end colostomy. For midline laparotomies, both the retromuscular and onlay positions of a prophylactic mesh seem equally effective and safe. For parastomal hernia prevention, only the retromuscular prophylactic mesh and its use for end colostomies has been proven to be effective and safe. No data support the choice of a biological mesh or a synthetic absorbable mesh over a non-absorbable synthetic mesh, even in clean-contaminated surgical procedures. No data yet support the standard use of prophylactic mesh when closing the wound during closure of a temporary stoma. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh implantation should be standard of care during construction of an elective end colostomy and will become standard of care for midline laparotomies in patients at a high risk of incisional hernias.