Repair of Parastomal Hernias.

Parastomal hernias are an inevitable consequence of ostomy formation and their repairs remain a challenge to many surgeons. With multiple systems of classification and a multitude of techniques for hernia repair ranging from suture to mesh repair, the literature remains sparse with regards to the optimal method of repair. The authors describe the most commonly adopted techniques, discuss preventative measures, and review the current literature in the context of perioperative outcomes and hernia recurrence.

Impact of small-bite (5 mm) fascial closure on the incidence of incisional hernia following open colorectal cancer surgery: randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is frequently observed after open colorectal cancer surgery, and should be considered a serious short- and long-term health issue. The present study evaluated the efficacy of small-bite abdominal closure in reducing the incidence of incisional hernia in this patient group. METHODS: An RCT was conducted between June 2019 and June 2022. A total of 173 patients who underwent open colorectal cancer surgery were assigned randomly to one of two groups to undergo fascial closure with either small bites (87) or conventional bites (86). The incisional hernia rate was accepted as the primary outcome, and surgical-site infection as the secondary outcome. RESULTS: The incisional hernia rates at 1 year were 7 and 27% in the small- and conventional-bite groups respectively (P < 0.001). This rate increased to 9 and 31% at the end of the second year (P < 0.001). Surgical-site infections occurred in 18% of the small-bite group and 31% of the conventional-bite group (P = 0.03). Compared with the conventional-bite group, the small-bite group had higher suture/wound length ratios (mean(s.d.) 5.18(0.84) versus 3.67(0.57); P < 0.001) and a longer fascial closure time 14.1(4.64) versus 12.9(2.39) min; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Small-bite closure with 5-mm tissue bites placed 5 mm apart reduced the incidence of incisional hernia and surgical-site infection after open colorectal cancer surgery.

Randomized Trial of Transverse vs Vertical Extraction Site Incision After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Incisional hernias are a frequent complication following robotic radical prostatectomy. Observational data in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy suggest that transverse closure resulted in lower hernia rates than vertical closure. We sought to compare the incidence of incisional hernia after robotic radical prostatectomy after vertical and transverse extraction site closure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a clinically integrated, crossover, cluster randomized trial at a single tertiary referral center (January 2016-September 2021) comparing the rate of hernia after transverse vs vertical extraction site excision in 1356 patients treated with minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. The primary outcome was between-group incidence of incisional hernia within 15 months of prostatectomy defined by physical examination and self-reported patient surveys. RESULTS: Overall, 197 (20%) patients developed an incisional hernia within 15 months, 797 did not have an incisional hernia within this period, and 362 had missing outcome data regarding incisional hernia. We found no significant difference in hernia rates between the 2 incision types (absolute between-group difference 1.8%; 95% CI -3.4%, 6.6%; P = .5) in the primary analysis or in the 3 sensitivity analyses. Notably, because of the inclusive definition of hernia used, these data cannot be used as an estimate of the true prevalence of incisional hernia. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should choose the incision and closure approach they are most comfortable with when extracting specimens. Studies of modifications to the surgical technique are best conducted as randomized comparisons, and the clinically integrated, crossover, cluster randomized trial allows large trials to be completed at a single center and at low cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01407263.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of insertion of a biological mesh during stoma-site closure: 5-8-year follow-up of the ROCSS randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The original ROCSS trial demonstrated a significant reduction in clinically detectable incisional hernias at 2 years in patients receiving prophylactic biological mesh during stoma closure. ROCSS-Ex was designed to investigate the 5-8-year cost-effectiveness of mesh in the surviving cohort using an abdominal wall-specific quality of life score. METHODS: Eligible participants from original UK centres were identified. The primary outcome (abdominal wall-specific quality of life) was measured using the HerQLes score and EQ-5D-5L. Assessors remained blind to patients' original allocation, even if the patient was aware of their treatment. RESULTS: Of the original 790 patients, 598 were available for long-term follow-up. HerQLes scores were available for 396 patients (no mesh: 191, mesh: 205). There was no difference in primary outcome between the two groups (mean difference of 1.48, 95% c.i. (-2.35, 5.32), P = 0.45) and no cost benefit of routine insertion of prophylactic biological mesh across the entire cohort in the long term. However, patients who received mesh experienced significantly fewer stoma site complications within the first 3 years after reversal and needed fewer surgical reinterventions (32 versus 54 for the no mesh group; incidence rate ratio of 0.55, 95% c.i. (0.31, 0.97), P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: ROCSS-Ex has shown equivocal outcomes for prophylactic mesh insertion versus standard repair on abdominal wall-specific quality of life 5-8 years after surgery. As most reinterventions occurred within the first 3 years post-surgery, there may be a role for prophylactic mesh in a subset of patients who would be most adversely affected by repeated surgery early on. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN25584182 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Incidence and risk factors for perineal hernia after robotic abdominoperineal resection: a single-center, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Perineal hernia (PH) is a late complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) that may compromise a patient's quality of life. The frequency and risk factors for PH after robotic APR adopting recent rectal cancer treatment strategies remain unclear. METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic APR for rectal cancer between December 2011 and June 2022 were retrospectively examined. From July 2020, pelvic reinforcement procedures, such as robotic closure of the pelvic peritoneum and levator ani muscles, were performed as prophylactic procedures for PH whenever feasible. PH was diagnosed in patients with or without symptoms using computed tomography 1 year after surgery. We examined the frequency of PH, compared characteristics between patients with PH (PH+) and without PH (PH-), and identified risk factors for PH. RESULTS: We evaluated 142 patients, including 53 PH+ (37.3%) and 89 PH- (62.6%). PH+ had a significantly higher rate of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (26.4% versus 10.1%, p = 0.017) and a significantly lower rate of undergoing pelvic reinforcement procedures (1.9% versus 14.0%, p = 0.017). PH+ had a lower rate of lateral lymph node dissection (47.2% versus 61.8%, p = 0.115) and a shorter operative time (340 min versus 394 min, p = 0.110). According to multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for PH were preoperative chemoradiotherapy, not undergoing lateral lymph node dissection, and not undergoing a pelvic reinforcement procedure. CONCLUSIONS: PH after robotic APR for rectal cancer is not a rare complication under the recent treatment strategies for rectal cancer, and performing prophylactic procedures for PH should be considered.

Prophylactic surgical mesh placement as a prevention of parastomal hernia in open radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion - pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines the efficacy of prophylactic mesh implantation during open radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion in preventing parastomal hernias (PH). Despite PH being a common complication, prophylactic methods have been underexplored. METHODS: A pilot, single-center, prospective cohort study was conducted involving five patients undergoing surgery with mesh implantation. Demographic and clinical characteristics were monitored, including the incidence of PH, operation time, blood loss, and hospitalization duration. RESULTS: During the mean follow-up period of 9.1±3.2 months post-operation, no occurrences of PH were observed in the patient group. Despite the risks associated with implanting foreign material in an area of surgery involving open small intestine, no infectious complications were noted. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic mesh implantation in radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion appears to be an effective preventive measure against PH. Further extensive studies are required to definitively confirm the efficacy and safety of mesh use in this context.

Hernia sac preservation in large incisional ventral hernia to prevent anterior component release.

Large ventral hernias require complex surgical techniques, such as component separation. We are presenting a case of an incisional hernia measuring 15×8 cm. The hernia was covered with an overlying thin layer of skin and hernia sac. The skin of this layer was densely adherent to the underlying hernial sac. Because of the thin hernial sac and adherent nature of the skin, approximately 3 cm of the hernial sac was preserved. We used this hernial sac as the anterior sheath 'extension' for a tension-free closure. Posterior component separation with transverse abdominis muscle release was done to close the posterior layer without tension and to place a 23×16 cm mesh in the retrorectus plane. By using the hernial sac in repair, we avoided anterior component separation and achieved tension-free closure of the anterior layer.

Effect of Sublay Preventive Mesh for Terminal Colostomy on Symptoms and Quality of Life in Patients With Parastomal Hernia: A Post Hoc Analysis of the GRECCAR 7 Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses confirm that the use of a prophylactic mesh does not significantly reduce the parastomal hernia rate. Data about the benefits of these meshes concerning the symptoms of parastomal hernia are lacking in the existing literature. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a post hoc analysis of the patients presenting parastomal hernia from the GRECCAR 7 (Groupe de recherche sur la chirurgie du cancer du rectum) randomized clinical trials cohort on whether the presence or the absence of the mesh influenced the symptoms, the quality of life, and complications of patients with parastomal hernias. DESIGN: We studied the parastomal hernia-related symptoms among the 2 groups of the GRECCAR 7 randomized clinical trial, with or without prophylactic mesh at the time of the index surgery. SETTINGS: Data were retrospectively extracted and analyzed from the GRECCAR 7 database. PATIENTS: Patients diagnosed with a parastomal hernia during the 2 years of the GRECCAR 7 study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Several prospectively collected data about the symptoms were studied among this population. We also studied the average interval between parastomal hernia repair surgery and both index surgery and diagnosis of parastomal hernia. RESULTS: Among the 199 patients included in the GRECCAR study, 36 patients (35.6%) in the nonmesh group and 33 patients (33.7%) in the mesh group were diagnosed with clinical and/or radiological parastomal hernia at 2-year follow-up, without a statistically significant difference ( p = 0.89). None of the studied symptoms showed any statistically significant difference between the groups. LIMITATIONS: This study relies on a relatively small number of patients, and although data were prospectively collected, we lacked some details about the categorization of parastomal hernias. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that the use of a prosthetic mesh in a sublay position to prevent parastomal hernia in terminal end colostomy patients should no longer be recommended. See Video Abstract . EFECTO DE LA MALLA PREVENTIVA RETROMUSCULAR PARA COLOSTOMA TERMINAL CON RESPECTO A LOS SNTOMAS Y LA CALIDAD DE VIDA EN PACIENTES CON HERNIA PARAESTOMAL UN ANLISIS POSTHOC DE LA COHORTE GRECCAR: ANTECEDENTES:Los recientes metaanálisis y ensayos clínicos aleatorizados confirman que el uso de una malla profiláctica no reduce significativamente la tasa de hernia paraestomal. En la literatura existente faltan datos sobre los beneficios de estas mallas en relación con los síntomas de la hernia paraestomal.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue realizar un análisis post-hoc de los pacientes que presentaron hernia paraestomal de la cohorte de 7 ensayos clínicos aleatorizados GRECCAR sobre si la presencia o ausencia de la malla influyó en los síntomas, la calidad de vida y las complicaciones de los pacientes con hernias paraestomales.DISEÑO:Estudiamos los síntomas relacionados con la hernia paraestomal entre los dos grupos del ensayo clínico aleatorizado GRECCAR 7, con o sin malla profiláctica en el momento de la cirugía índice.AJUSTES:Los datos fueron extraídos y analizados de manera retrospectiva de la base de datos GRECCAR 7.PACIENTES:Pacientes diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal durante los dos años del estudio GRECCAR 7.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se estudiaron varios datos recopilados de manera prospectiva sobre los síntomas en esta población. También estudiamos el intervalo promedio entre la cirugía reparadora de la hernia paraestomal así como también la cirugía índice como el diagnóstico de la hernia paraestomal.RESULTADOS:De entre los 199 pacientes incluidos en el estudio GRECCAR, 36 pacientes (35,6%) fueron diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal de manera clínica y/o radiológica en el grupo sin malla a los 2 años de seguimiento y 33 (33,7%) en el grupo con malla, sin diferencia estadísticamente significativa ( p = 0,89). Ninguno de los síntomas estudiados mostró diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se basa en un número relativamente pequeño de pacientes y, aunque los datos fueron recopilados de forma prospectiva, nos faltaron algunos detalles sobre la categorización de las hernias paraestomales.CONCLUSIONES:Creemos que ya no se debe recomendar el uso de una malla protésica en posición retromuscular para prevenir la hernia paraestomal en pacientes con colostomía terminal. (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

Effects of different mesh materials on complications after prophylactic placement for stoma formation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We primary aimed to synthesise the available data, assess the effectiveness of different mesh materials in prophylactic mesh placement, and rank these materials according to the incidence of parastomal hernia (PSH) and other stoma complications. METHOD: This network meta-analysis performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Four databases were searched for randomised controlled trials of prophylactic mesh placement. The aggregated results were performed in the STATA routine for Bayesian hierarchical random effects models. RESULT: Thirteen randomised controlled trials from 1203 articles, met the inclusion criteria, including 681 cases without meshes, 65 cases with mesh material of xenogeneic acellular dermis (porcine/bovine), 27 cases with polypropylene/PG910, 114 cases with polypropylene/polyglecaprone (Monocryl), 117 cases with polypropylene/cellulose (ORC), 233 cases with polypropylene, and 35 cases with polypropylene/PVDF. In network A, compared with no mesh, only polypropylene (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04-0.80) were significantly associated with a reduction in the incidence of PSH. In network B, no statistical difference regarding stoma complications was found between mesh and no mesh. CONCLUSION: Based on the network meta-analysis and ranking results, the polypropylene mesh material exhibited the best performance. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with larger sample sizes and high-quality randomised controlled trials.

A prospective single-arm clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of monofilament polydioxanone barbed suture, MONOFIX®, on abdominal fascial closure.

BACKGROUND: For abdominal fascial closure, the choice of optimal suture material and appropriate suture technique are of paramount importance to prevent the incidence of incisional hernia. Although barbed sutures are widely used in various surgical fields, their safety and feasibility on abdominal fascial closure which requires the most tensile strength for security have not been established yet. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-arm, interventional clinical trial to present the postoperative outcomes of using barbed sutures in abdominal fascial closure between April 2021 and August 2021. Patients with colorectal cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery in elective setting were included. For all participants, monofilament polydioxanone barbed suture, MONOFIX®, was used to secure the abdominal fasica. The primary outcome was the 1-year incidence of incisional hernia assessed by computed tomography. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were included. The median fascial incision length and suture length were 6.5 cm (range, 6-7.5 cm) and 31 cm (range, 27.5-39.0 cm), respectively. The median procedure time of abdominal fascial closure was 4 min (range, 3-9 min). There was no incidence of unexpected event related to suturing including suture cutting, stopper separation from threads, and suture loosening. One case of superficial surgical site infection occurred during postoperative hospital stays. There was no fascial dehiscence, incisional hernia, and adhesive ileus during a median follow-up period of 17.5 months. CONCLUSION: Monofilament polydioxanone barbed suture, MONOFIX®, may be used safely and effectively on abdominal fascial closure. GOV NUMBER: NCT05872334.

Superiority trial for the development of an ideal method for the closure of midline abdominal wall incisions to reduce the incidence of wound complications after elective gastroenterological surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The recent guidelines from the European and American Hernia Societies recommend a continuous small-bite suturing technique with slowly absorbable sutures for fascial closure of midline abdominal wall incisions to reduce the incidence of wound complications, especially for incisional hernia. However, this is based on low-certainty evidence. We could not find any recommendations for skin closure. The wound closure technique is an important determinant of the risk of wound complications, and a comprehensive approach to prevent wound complications should be developed. METHODS: We propose a single-institute, prospective, randomized, blinded-endpoint trial to assess the superiority of the combination of continuous suturing of the fascia without peritoneal closure and continuous suturing of the subcuticular tissue (study group) over that of interrupted suturing of the fascia together with the peritoneum and interrupted suturing of the subcuticular tissue (control group) for reducing the incidence of midline abdominal wall incision wound complications after elective gastroenterological surgery with a clean-contaminated wound. Permuted-block randomization with an allocation ratio of 1:1 and blocking will be used. We hypothesize that the study group will show a 50% reduction in the incidence of wound complications. The target number of cases is set at 284. The primary outcome is the incidence of wound complications, including incisional surgical site infection, hemorrhage, seroma, wound dehiscence within 30 days after surgery, and incisional hernia at approximately 1 year after surgery. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide initial evidence on the ideal combination of fascial and skin closure for midline abdominal wall incision to reduce the incidence of overall postoperative wound complications after gastroenterological surgery with a clean-contaminated wound. This trial is expected to generate high-quality evidence that supports the current guidelines for the closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies and to contribute to their next updates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR UMIN000048442. Registered on 1 August 2022. https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000055205.

Prophylactic Biosynthetic Retrorectus Mesh Placement During Stoma Reversal Reduces the Rate of Stoma Site Incisional Hernia.

INTRODUCTION: Stoma site incisional hernias (SSIHs) are associated with substantial long-term morbidity, and the rate can be as high as 30% to 40%. Recent efforts using prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) to reduce the development of hernias have shown encouraging outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the use of prophylactic biosynthetic mesh at the time of stoma reversal on the overall SSIH rate. METHODS: This is an observational retrospective cohort study. A review of 101 consecutive patients who underwent PMR in the retrorectus plane from 2015 to 2020 was compared to 73 consecutive patients who underwent primary stoma closure without mesh from 2011 to 2014. The primary endpoint was the presence of SSIH on clinical examination or computed tomography after ostomy takedown. RESULTS: In total, 174 cases were analyzed with 101 patients in the treatment group (median follow-up 45.2 months) and 73 patients in the control group (median follow-up 43.2 months). There were no major differences in preoperative characteristics between the groups. Fourteen patients developed SSIHs with 1 (1.0%) in the treatment arm and 13 (17.8%) in the control arm (p = 0.001). The majority of stomas were loop ileostomies and end colostomies, and stoma type did not affect hernia rates. On univariate analysis, body mass index (p = 0.029) and chronic kidney disease < 3 (p = 0.003) were independent predictors of hernia formation, while mesh was significantly protective (p = 0.000057). DISCUSSION: PMR with biosynthetic mesh at the time of stoma reversal and closure is an effective procedure to reduce the incidence of SSIHs and does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of complications.

Small bite fascial closure technique reduces incisional hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients.

BACKGROUND: The potential for the technique of small bite fascial closure in mitigating incisional hernias in gynecologic oncology patients still needs to be investigated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of closure of small fascial bites compared with prior standard closure on incisional hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study comparing patient outcomes before and after the intervention at a single institution at a comprehensive cancer center. Patients who underwent laparotomy with a vertical midline incision for a suspected or known gynecologic malignancy with a 1-year follow-up were included. The pre-intervention cohort (large bites) had 'mass' or modified running Smead-Jones closure. In contrast, the post-intervention cohort had fascial bites taken 5-8 mm laterally with no more than 5 mm travel (small bites) closure using a 2-0 polydioxanone suture.The primary outcome was the incisional hernias rate determined by imaging or clinical examination within the first year of follow-up. Patient factors and peri-operative variates of interest were investigated for their association with hernia formation through univariate and multivariate analyses. These included age, body mass index (BMI), smoking history, estimated blood loss, pre-operative albumin, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) physical status classification, or treatment with chemotherapy post-operatively. RESULTS: Of the 255 patients included, the total hernia rate was 12.5% (32/255 patients). Patient characteristics were similar in both cohorts. Small bite closure led to a significant reduction in hernia rates from 17.2% (22/128 patients) to 7.9% (10/127 patients), p=0.025. According to logistic regression modeling, small bite closure (OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.94, p=0.036) was independently associated with lower odds of hernia formation. Other factors associated with increased hernia rates were chemotherapy (OR=3.22, 95% CI 1.22 to 8.51, p=0.019) and obesity (OR=23.4, 95% CI 3.09 to 177, p=0.002). In obese patients, small bite closures led to maximal hernia rate reduction compared with large bites. CONCLUSIONS: The small bite closure technique effectively reduces hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing midline laparotomy.

Prophylactic Use of Biologic Mesh in Ileal Conduit (PUBMIC): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: We assessed the effect of prophylactic biologic mesh on parastomal hernia (PSH) development in patients undergoing cystectomy and ileal conduit (IC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, controlled trial (NCT02439060) included 146 patients who underwent cystectomy and IC at the University of Southern California between 2015 and 2021. Follow-ups were physical exam and CT every 4 to 6 months up to 2 years. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive FlexHD prophylactic biological mesh using sublay intraperitoneal technique vs standard IC. The primary end point was time to radiological PSH, and secondary outcomes included clinical PSH with/without surgical intervention and mesh-related complications. RESULTS: The 2 arms were similar in terms of baseline clinical features. All surgeries and mesh placements were performed without any intraoperative complications. Median operative time was 31 minutes longer in patients who received mesh, yet with no statistically significant difference (363 vs 332 minutes, P = .16). With a median follow-up of 24 months, radiological and clinical PSHs were detected in 37 (18 mesh recipients vs 19 controls) and 16 (8 subjects in both arms) patients, with a median time to radiological and clinical PSH of 8.3 and 15.5 months, respectively. No definite mesh-related adverse events were reported. Five patients (3 in the mesh and 2 in the control arm) required surgical PSH repair. Radiological PSH-free survival rates in the mesh and control groups were 74% vs 75% at 1 year and 69% vs 62% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of biologic mesh at the time of IC construction is safe without significant protective effects within 2 years following surgery.

Short-term outcomes of a multicentre prospective study using a "visible" polyvinylidene fluoride onlay mesh for the prevention of midline incisional hernia.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic meshes in high-risk patients prevent incisional hernias, although there are still some concerns about the best layer to place them in, the type of fixation, the mesh material, the significance of the level of contamination, and surgical complications. We aimed to provide answers to these questions and information about how the implanted material behaves based on its visibility under magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHOD: This is a prospective multicentre observational cohort study. Preliminary results from the first 3 months are presented. We included general surgical patients who had at least two risk factors for developing an incisional hernia. Multivariate logistic regression was used. A polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mesh loaded with iron particles was used in an onlay position. MRIs were performed 6 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: Between July 2016 and June 2022, 185 patients were enrolled in the study. Surgery was emergent in 30.3% of cases, contaminated in 10.7% and dirty in 11.8%. A total of 5.6% of cases had postoperative wound infections, with the requirement of stoma being the only significant risk factor (OR = 7.59, p = 0.03). The formation of a seroma at 6 weeks detected by MRI, was associated with body mass index (OR = 1.13, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The prophylactic use of onlay PVDF mesh in midline laparotomies in high-risk patients was safe and effective in the short term, regardless of the type of surgery or the level of contamination. MRI allowed us to detect asymptomatic seromas during the early process of integration. STUDY REGISTRATION:  This protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03105895).

Protocol for an independent patient data meta-analysis of prophylactic mesh placement for incisional hernia prevention after abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: a collaborative European Hernia Society project (I-PREVENT-AAA).

INTRODUCTION: Incisional hernia (IH) is a prevalent and potentially dangerous complication of abdominal surgery, especially in high-risk groups. Mesh reinforcement of the abdominal wall has been studied as a potential intervention to prevent IHs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that prophylactic mesh reinforcement after abdominal surgery, in general, is effective and safe. In patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), prophylactic mesh reinforcement after open repair has not yet been recommended in official guidelines, because of relatively small sample sizes in individual trials. Furthermore, the identification of subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh placement requires larger patient numbers. Our primary aim is to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the use of a prophylactic mesh after open AAA surgery to prevent IH by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA). Secondary aims include the evaluation of postoperative complications, pain and quality of life, and the identification of potential subgroups that benefit most from prophylactic mesh reinforcement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review to identify RCTs that study prophylactic mesh placement after open AAA surgery. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar will be searched from the date of inception onwards. RCTs must directly compare primary sutured closure with mesh closure in adult patients who undergo open AAA surgery. Lead authors of eligible studies will be asked to share individual participant data (IPD). The risk of bias (ROB) for each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane ROB tool. An IPDMA will be performed to evaluate the efficacy, with the IH rate as the primary outcome. Any signs of heterogeneity will be evaluated by Forest plots. Time-to-event analyses are performed using Cox regression analysis to evaluate risk factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No new data will be collected in this study. We will adhere to institutional, national and international regulations regarding the secure and confidential sharing of IPD, addressing ethics as indicated. We will disseminate findings via international conferences, open-source publications in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted online. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022347881.

Parastomal hernia prevention with an intraperitoneal prophylactic 3D-funnel mesh: review of the technique and middle-term results.

PURPOSE: Parastomal hernia (PH) stands out as a prevalent complication following end colostomies, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. Various surgical strategies, predominantly involving prophylactic mesh deployment, have been explored with variable outcomes. This study details our experience and mid-term outcomes utilizing a funnel-shaped mesh. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, non-randomized, observational study examined consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery with end colostomy, incorporating a 3D-funnel mesh from January 2019 to December 2021 (PM group). A historical cohort of patients with end colostomy without prophylactic mesh served as the comparison (C group). Postoperative morbidity within 30 days was documented, and clinical examinations and radiological tests were employed for parastomal hernia diagnosis during follow-up. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients participated, with thirty-four in the PM group and thirty-eight in the C group. The PM group experienced 16 postoperative complications, unrelated to the mesh, while the C group recorded 20 complications (p = 0.672). Median follow-up was 22.06 months for the PM group and 63.18 months for the C group. The PM group exhibited a lower parastomal hernia incidence during follow-up (8.8%) compared to the C group(68.4%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic use of a 3D-funnel mesh appears effective in reducing parastomal hernia incidence in the short and mid-term, without an associated increase in postoperative morbidity.

State of the Art: Advances in Hernia Care.

The field of hernia surgery has seen many recent advances and continues to evolve. Care of the hernia patient begins preoperatively by ensuring adequate preparation for surgery with surgeons now having the opportunity to accurately predict risk which can aid with informed consent. Imaging studies can now help surgeons diagnose and plan hernia surgery on an individual level based on hernia characteristics as well as abdominal wall musculature. In the operating room, new technology and surgical techniques have allowed surgeons to become increasingly sophisticated with goals of reducing tension on midline closures, utilizing minimally invasive and robotic techniques, and availability of new and varied mesh prosthetics. While modest improvements in outcomes have been witnessed by these advances, there is still opportunity for improvement which will be realized by continued research, use of registries, and education and training. Hernia prevention strategies focusing on minimally invasive surgery, laparotomy closure, and the use of prophylactic mesh will also help with the burden of incisional hernias. These advances in hernia surgery have led to the new field of Abdominal Core Health which helps represent this evolving and growing new subspecialty of general surgery.

Postoperative Incisional Complications in Gynaecologic Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery: Comparing Closure Techniques.

OBJECTIVES: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and robotic SILS (rSILS) have been found to be safe, minimally invasive techniques in gynaecology. However, one major perceived drawback of these techniques is the increased risk of incisional hernia, compared to multiport laparoscopy or robotic surgery. This study's aim was to determine the optimal technique to reduce postoperative incisional complications such as hernia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at an academic centre from November 2014 to June 2022 on 1036 women who underwent SILS and rSILS gynaecologic procedures with various closure techniques. Techniques included running absorbable sutures without tagging incision apices (standard closure) and tagging incision apices at the beginning of surgery with the use of permanent suture, absorbable suture, or a combination. RESULTS: Rates of hernia (primary outcome) and incisional issues (secondary outcome) such as separation or infection were analyzed by technique. Hernia rates were lower when incision apices were tagged compared to when not tagged (P < 0.001). Cellulitis/abscess rates were not significantly different. Incision separation was higher when apices were tagged with absorbable and a combination of permanent and absorbable sutures than if apices were tagged with all permanent sutures or not at all. In multivariate analysis, hernia rate decreased in groups with tagged apices, although other incision complications did not vary. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of incisional hernia after SILS procedures is low, though it does vary by technique. Tagging apices for closure, regardless of suture type, can mitigate one of the biggest concerns of performing SILS by reducing postoperative incisional hernia risk.