The Utilization of Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair (LVHR) in Incarcerated and Strangulated Cases: A National Trend in Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Early after its adoption, minimally invasive surgery had limited usefulness in emergent cases. However, with improvements in equipment, techniques, and skills, laparoscopy in complex and emergency operations expanded substantially. This study aimed to examine the trend of laparoscopy in incarcerated or strangulated ventral hernia repair (VHR) over time. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried for laparoscopic repair of incarcerated and strangulated hernias (LIS-VHR) and compared over 2 time periods, 2014-2016 and 2017-2019. RESULTS: The utilization of laparoscopy in all incarcerated or strangulated VHR increased over time (2014-2016: 39.9% (n = 14 075) vs 2017-2019: 46.3% (n = 18 369), P < .001). Though likely not clinically significant, demographics and comorbidities statistically differed between groups (female: 51.7% vs 50.0%, P = .003; age 54.5 ± 13.7 vs 55.4 ± 13.8 years, P < .001; BMI 34.9 ± 8.0 vs 34.6 ± 7.8 kg/m2, P < .001). Patients from 2017 to 2019 were less comorbid (18.9% vs 16.8% smokers, P < .001; 18.2% vs 17.3% diabetic, P = .036; 4.6% vs 4.1% COPD, P = .021) but had higher ASA classification (III: 43.3% vs 45.7%; IV: 2.5% vs 2.7%, P < .001). Hernia types (primary, incisional, recurrent) were similar in each group. Operative time (89.7 ± 59.3 vs 97.4 ± 63.4 min, P < .001) became longer but length-of-stay (1.4 ± 3.3 vs 1.1 ± 2.6 days, P < .001) decreased. There was no statistical difference in surgical complications, medical complications, reoperation, or readmission rates between periods. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic VHR has become a routine method for treating incarcerated and strangulated hernias, and its utilization continues to increase over time. Clinical outcomes have remained the same while hospital stays have decreased.

Open repair of flank and lumbar hernias: 142 consecutive repairs at a high-volume hernia center.

BACKGROUND: Flank and lumbar hernias (FLH) are challenging to repair. This study aimed to establish a reproducible management strategy and analyze elective flank and lumbar repair (FLHR) outcomes from a single institution. METHODS: A prospective analysis using a hernia-specific database was performed examining patients undergoing open FLHR between 2004 and 2021. Variables included patient demographics and operative characteristics. RESULTS: Of 142 patients, 106 presented with flank hernias, and 36 with lumbar hernias. Patients, primarily ASA Class 2 or 3, exhibited a mean age of 57.0 â€‹± â€‹13.4 years and BMI of 30.2 â€‹± â€‹5.7 â€‹kg/m2. Repairs predominantly utilized synthetic mesh in the preperitoneal space (95.1 â€‹%). After 29.9 â€‹± â€‹13.1 months follow-up, wound infections occurred in 8.3 â€‹%; hernia recurrence was 3.5 â€‹%. At 6 months postoperatively, 21.2 â€‹% of patients reported chronic pain with two-thirds of these individuals having preoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: Open preperitoneal FLHR provides a durable repair with low complication and hernia recurrence rates over 2.5 years of follow-up.

Factors Associated With Respiratory Failure After Open Ventral Hernia Repair: An Evaluation of the NSQIP Database.

An analysis of ACS-NSQIP open ventral hernia repair (OVHR) data (2017-2019) was performed. Respiratory failure (RF) occurred in 643 patients (1%) and not in 63,213 (99%) (nRF). Respiratory failure patients were older (63.7 vs 57 years, P < .001) and more comorbid: insulin-dependent diabetes (14.7% vs 5.8%, P < .001), COPD (19.4% vs 5.2%, P < .001), BMI (36.0 vs 32.8, P < .001), and current tobacco use (24.9% vs 17.6%, P < .001). Respiratory failure patients had greater ASA scores (ASA 3: 63.3% vs 47.8%, P < .001), bowel resection (8.2% vs 1.3%, P < .001), component separation (20.1% vs 9.0%, P < .001), operative times (178.4 vs 98.8 minutes, P < .001), complications (deep wound infections 3.6% vs 1.0%, organ space infections 13.2% vs 1.0%, wound dehiscence 3.1% vs 0.6%, acute renal failure 11.7% vs 0.1%), and hospital stay (13.7 vs 2.3 days), with fewer home discharges (44.3% vs 96.4%) (all P < .001). Respiratory failure patients had higher mortality compared to nRF (20.2% vs 0.1%, P < .001). Respiratory failure after OVHR is rare but correlates closely with significant wound, systemic, and social complications. Preoperative management of risk factors would be appropriate in high-risk patients.

Disparate potential for readmission prevention exists among inpatient and outpatient procedures in a minimally invasive surgery practice.

BACKGROUND: Administrators have focused on decreasing postoperative readmissions for cost reduction without fully understanding their preventability. This study describes the development and implementation of a surgeon-led readmission review process that assessed preventability. METHODS: A gastrointestinal surgical group at a tertiary referral hospital developed and implemented a template to analyze inpatient and outpatient readmissions. Monthly stakeholder assessments reviewed and categorized readmissions as potentially preventable or not preventable. Continuous variables were examined by the Student's t test and reported as means and standard deviations. Categorical variables were examined by the Pearson χ2 statistic and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: There were 61 readmission events after 849 inpatient operations (7.2%) and 16 after 856 outpatient operations (1.9%), the latter of which were all classified as potentially preventable. Colorectal procedures represented 65.6% of readmissions despite being only 37.2% of all cases. The majority (67.2%) of readmission events were not preventable. Compared to the not-preventable group, the potentially preventable group experienced more dehydration (30.0% vs 9.8%, P = .045) and ileostomy creation (78.6% vs 33.3%, P = .017). The potential for outpatient management to prevent readmission was significantly higher in the potentially preventable group (40.0% vs 0.0%, P < .001), as was premature discharge prevention (35.0% vs 0.0%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The use of the standardized template developed for analyzing readmission events after inpatient and outpatient procedures identified a disparate potential for readmission prevention. This finding suggests that a singular focus on readmission reduction is misguided, with further work needed to evaluate and implement appropriate quality-based strategies.

Prospective, international analysis of quality of life outcomes in recurrent versus primary ventral hernia repairs.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) has become a key outcome measure following ventral hernia repair (VHR), but recurrent and primary VHR have not been compared in this context previously. METHODS: The International Hernia Mesh Registry (2008-2019) was used to identify patients with QOL data scored by the Carolinas Comfort Scale preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 year. RESULTS: Repairs were performed in 227 recurrent and 1,122 primary VHs. Recurrent patients had a higher BMI, larger defects, and were more likely to have preoperative pain, but other comorbidities were equal. Recurrence rates at 1 year were equivalent. Recurrent patients had a greater improvement in pain (-6.3 ± 10.2 vs -4.3 ± 8.3,p = 0.002) and movement limitation (-5.5 ± 10.0 vs -3.2 ± 7.2,p < 0.001) compared to primary patients, but they had increased postoperative mesh sensation (4.6 ± 7.7 vs 2.7 ± 5.5,p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent VHRs led to improved pain and movement limitation, but increased mesh sensation. These findings may be useful for preoperative counseling in the elective setting.

Defining surgical risk in octogenarians undergoing paraesophageal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: With an aging population, the utility of surgery in elderly patients, particularly octogenarians, is of increasing interest. The goal of this study was to analyze outcomes of octogenarians versus non-octogenarians undergoing paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR). METHODS: The Nationwide Readmission Database was queried for patients > 18 years old who underwent PEHR from 2016 to 2018. Exclusion criteria included a diagnosis of gastrointestinal malignancy or a concurrent bariatric procedure. Patients ≥ 80 were compared to those 18-79 years old using standard statistical methods, and subgroup analyses of elective and non-elective PEHRs were performed. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2018, 46,450 patients were identified with 5425 (11.7%) octogenarians and 41,025 (88.3%) non-octogenarians. Octogenarians were more likely to have a non-elective operation (46.3% vs 18.2%, p < 0.001), and those undergoing non-elective PEHR had a higher mortality (5.5% vs 1.2%, p < 0.001). Outcomes were improved with elective PEHR, but octogenarians still had higher mortality (1.3% vs 0.2%, p < 0.001), longer LOS (3[2, 5] vs 2[1, 3] days, p < 0.001), and higher readmission rates within 30 days (11.1% vs 6.5%, p < 0.001) compared to non-octogenarian elective patients. Multivariable logistic regression showed that being an octogenarian was not independently predictive of mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.373[95% confidence interval 0.962-1.959], p = 0.081), but a non-elective operation was (OR 3.180[2.492-4.057], p < 0.001). Being an octogenarian was a risk factor for readmission within 30 days (OR 1.512[1.348-1.697], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarians represented a substantial proportion of patients undergoing PEHR and were more likely to undergo a non-elective operation. Being an octogenarian was not an independent predictor of perioperative mortality, but a non-elective operation was. Octogenarians' morbidity and mortality was reduced in elective procedures but was still higher than non-octogenarians. Elective PEHR in octogenarians is reasonable but should involve a thorough risk-benefit analysis.

The incidence and impact of enterotomy during laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair: a nationwide readmissions analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to define the national incidence of enterotomy (ENT) during minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (MIS-VHR) and evaluate impact on short-term outcomes. METHODS: The 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried using ICD-10 codes for MIS-VHR and enterotomy. All patients had 3-months follow-up. Patients were stratified by elective status; patients without ENT (No-ENT) were compared against ENT patients. RESULTS: In total, 30,025 patients underwent LVHR and ENT occurred in 388 (1.3%) patients; 19,188 (63.9%) cases were elective including 244 elective-ENT patients. Incidence was similar between elective versus non-elective cohorts (1.27% vs 1.33%; p = 0.674). Compared to laparoscopy, ENT was more common during robotic procedures (1.2% vs 1.7%; p = 0.004). Comparison of elective-No-ENT vs elective-ENT showed that elective-ENT patients had a longer median LOS (2 vs 5 days; p < 0.001), higher mean hospital cost ($51,656 vs $76,466; p < 0.001), increased rates of mortality (0.3% vs 2.9%; p < 0.001), and higher 3-month readmission (10.1% vs 13.9%; p = 0.048). Non-elective cohort comparison demonstrated non-elective-ENT patients had a longer median LOS (4 vs 7 days; p < 0.001), higher mean hospital cost ($58,379 vs $87,850; p < 0.001), increased rates of mortality (0.7% vs 2.1%;p < 0.001), and higher 3-month readmission (13.6% vs 22.2%; p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 95% CI), higher odds of enterotomy were associated with robotic-assisted procedures (1.386, 1.095-1.754; p = 0.007) and older age (1.014, 1.004-1.024; p = 0.006). Lower odds of ENT were associated with BMI > 25 kg/m2 (0.784, 0.624-0.984; p = 0.036) and metropolitan teaching vs metropolitan non-teaching (0.784, 0.622-0.987; p = 0.044). ENT patients (n = 388) were more likely to be readmitted with post-operative infection (1.9% vs 4.1%; p = 0.002) or bowel obstruction (1.0% vs 5.2%;p < 0.001) and more likely to undergo reoperation for intestinal adhesions (0.3% vs 1.0%; p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Inadvertent ENT occurred in 1.3% of MIS-VHRs, had similar rates between elective and urgent cases, but was more common for robotic procedures. ENT patients had a longer LOS, and increased cost and infection, readmission, re-operation and mortality rates.

Impact of COVID-19 on volume of elective and nonelective ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The significant decrease in elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted fears that there would be an increase in emergency or urgent operations for certain disease states. The impact of COVID-19 on ventral hernia repair is unknown. This study aimed to compare volumes of elective and nonelective ventral hernia repairs performed pre-COVID-19 with those performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An analysis of a prospective database from 8 hospitals capturing patient admissions with the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Procedure Coding System for ventral hernia repair from January 2017 through June 2021 were included. During, COVID-19 was defined as on or after March 2020. RESULTS: Comparing 3,558 ventral hernia repairs pre-COVID-19 with 1,228 during COVID-19, there was a significant decrease in the mean number of elective ventral hernia repairs per month during COVID-19 (pre-COVID-19: 61 ± 5 vs during COVID-19 19: 39 ± 11; P < .001), and this persisted after excluding the initial 3-month COVID-19 surge (61 ± 5 vs 42 ± 9; P < .001). There were fewer nonelective cases during the initial 3-month COVID-19 surge (32 ± 9 vs 24 ± 4; P = .031), but, excluding the initial surge, there was no difference in nonelective volume (32 ± 9 vs 33 ± 8; P = .560). During COVID-19, patients had lower rates of congestive heart failure (elective: 9.0% vs 6.6%; P = .0047; nonelective: 17.7% vs 11.6%; P < .001) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (elective: 13.7% vs 10.2%; P = .017; nonelective: 17.9% vs 12.0%; P < .001) and underwent fewer component separations (10.2% vs 6.4%; P ≤ .001). Intensive care unit admissions decreased for elective ventral hernia repairs (7.7% vs 5.0%; P = .016). Length of stay, cost, and readmission were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Elective ventral hernia repair volume decreased during COVID-19 whereas nonelective ventral hernia repairs transiently decreased before returning to baseline. During COVID-19, patients appeared to be lower risk and less complex. The possible impact of the more complex patients delaying surgery is yet to be seen.

Open preperitoneal ventral hernia repair: Prospective observational study of quality improvement outcomes over 18 years and 1,842 patients.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe progressive evidence-based changes in perioperative management of open preperitoneal ventral hernia repair and subsequent surgical outcomes and to analyze factors that affect recurrence and wound complications. METHODS: Prospective, tertiary hernia center data (2004-2021) were examined for patients undergoing midline open preperitoneal ventral hernia repair with mesh. "Early" (2004-2012) and "Recent" (2013-2021) groups were based on surgery date. RESULTS: Comparison of Early (n = 675) versus Recent (n = 1,167) groups showed that Recent patients were, on average, older (56.9 ± 12.6 vs 58.7 ± 12.1 years; P < .001) with a lower body mass index (33.5 ± 8.3 vs 32.0 ± 6.8 kg/m2; P = .003) and a higher number of comorbidities (3.6 ± 2.2 vs 5.2 ± 2.6; P < .001). Recent patients had higher proportions of prior failed ventral hernia repair (46.5% vs 60.8%; P < .001), larger hernia defects (199.7 ± 232.8 vs 214.4 ± 170.5 cm2; P < .001), more Center for Disease Control class 3 or 4 wounds (11.3% vs 18.6%; P < .001), and more component separations (22.5% vs 45.7%; P < .001). Hernia recurrence decreased over time (7.1% vs 2.4%; P < .001), as did wound complication rates (26.7% vs 13.2%; P < .001). Comparing respective multivariable analyses (Early versus Recent), wound complications were associated with panniculectomy (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.9 [1.9-4.5], P < .001 vs 2.1 [1.4-3.3], P < .01), contaminated wounds (2.1 [1.1-3.7], P = .02 vs 1.8 [1.1-3.1], P = .02), anterior component separation technique (1.8 [1.1-2.9], P = .02 vs 3.2[1.9-5.3], P < .01), and operative time (per minute: 1.01 [1.008-1.015], P < .01 vs 1.004 [1.001-1.007], P < .01). Diabetes (2.6 [1.7-4.0], P < .01) and tobacco (1.8 [1.1-2.9], P = .02) were only significant in the early group. In both groups, recurrence was associated with wound complication (8.9 [4.1-20.1], P < .01 vs 3.4 [1.3-8.2]. P < .01) and recurrent hernias (4.9 [2.3-11.5], P < .01 vs 2.1 [1.1-4.2], P = .036). CONCLUSION: Despite significant increased patient complexity over time, detecting and implementing best practices as determined by recurring data analysis of a center's outcomes has significantly improved patient care results.

Observational study of complex abdominal wall reconstruction using porcine dermal matrix: How have outcomes changed over 14 years?

BACKGROUND: Our center has adopted many evidence-based practices to improve outcomes for complex abdominal wall reconstruction with porcine dermal matrix. This study analyzed outcomes over time using porcine dermal matrix in complex abdominal wall reconstruction. METHODS: Prospective, tertiary hernia center data was examined for patients undergoing complex abdominal wall reconstruction with porcine dermal matrix. Early (2008-2014) and Recent (2015-2021) cohorts were defined by dividing the study interval in half. Multivariable analyses of wound complications and recurrence were performed. RESULTS: Comparing 117 Early vs 245 Recent patients, both groups had high rates of previously repaired hernias (76.1% vs 67.4%; P = .110), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 3 or 4 wounds (76.0% vs 66.6%; P = .002), and very large hernia defects (320 ± 317 vs 282 ± 164 cm2; P = .640). Recent patients had higher rates of preoperative botulinum injection (0% vs 21.2%; P < .001), posterior component separation (15.4% vs 35.5%; P < .001), and delayed primary closure (23.1% vs 38.8%; P < .001), but lower rates of concurrent panniculectomy (32.3% vs 27.8%; P = .027) and similar anterior component separation (29.1% vs 18.2%; P = .060). Most mesh was placed preperitoneal (74.4% vs 93.3%; P < .001). Recent patients had less inlay (9.4% vs 2.1%; P < .01) and other mesh locations as fascial closure rate increased (88.0% vs 95.5%; P < .001). Over time, there was a decrease in wound complications (42.1% vs 14.3%; P < .001), length of stay (median [interquartile range]:8 [6-13] vs 7 [6-9]; P = .003), and 30-day readmissions (32.7% vs 10.3%; P < .001). Hernia recurrence decreased (10.3% vs 3.7%; P = .016) with mean follow-up of 2.8 ± 3.2 and 1.7 ± 1.7 years, respectively. Respective multivariable models(odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) demonstrated an increased risk of wound complications with diabetes (2.65, 1.16-5.98; P = .020), panniculectomy (2.63, 1.21-5.73; P = .014), and anterior component separation (5.1, 1.98-12.9; P < .001), with recurrence risk increased by wound complication (3.8, 1.4-2-7.62; P = .032). CONCLUSION: Porcine dermal matrix in complex abdominal wall reconstruction performs well with low recurrence rates. Internal assessment and implementation of evidence-based practices improved outcomes such as length of stay, wound complications, and recurrence rate.

Impact of race and ethnicity on rates of emergent ventral hernia repair (VHR): has anything changed?

BACKGROUND: Non-white patients have been shown to have higher rates of emergent VHR, though no study to date has characterized these disparities over time. METHODS: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for VHR patients between 2008 and 2019. White, black, and hispanic patients were included for analysis. Older (2008-2011) versus New (2016-2019) time-periods were compared. The primary outcome was emergent VHR proportion. Multivariable analysis identified predictors of emergent VHR, then patients in each time-period were propensity matched (PSM) to control for confounders. RESULTS: The 665,809 VHRs between 2008 and 2019 consisted of 69.2% white, 9.7% black, and 8.1% hispanic patients. Emergent VHR rates were higher (all p < 0.001) for black (6.8%) and hispanic (5.6%) patients compared to White (4.1%). Emergent VHR rates between white vs black and white vs hispanic for both old (4.6% vs 7.4% and 4.6% vs 7.4%) and new (3.6% vs 5.8% and 3.6% vs 5.1%) groups demonstrated lower rates in White patients (all p < 0.001). Ratios of emergent VHR rates over time (old to new) remained similar (black:white 1.61-1.61; hispanic:white 1.43-1.42). Multivariable analysis showed older age, higher BMI, smoking, female sex, and increasing ASA class increased odds for emergent VHR. Comparison of PSM-groups (white-PSM vs black-PSM and white-PSM vs hispanic-PSM) for both old (5.0% vs 7.0% and 3.6% vs 6.3%) and new (3.2% vs 4.8% and 3.8% vs 5.5%) time-periods showed lower emergent VHR rates in white patients (all p < 0.001). Ratios of emergent VHR rates over time increased for black patients and decreased for Hispanic patients (black:white:1.4 to 1.5, and hispanic:white:1.75 to 1.45). CONCLUSION: Black and Hispanic patients have higher rates of emergent VHR compared to White patients, and this has not improved over time. After PSM to control for confounding variables, disparities in emergent VHR rates have increased for Black patients and decreased for Hispanic patients.

Laparoscopic versus robotic inguinal hernia repair: a single-center case-matched study.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) is becoming increasingly common and is the minimally invasive alternative to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR). Thus far, there is little data directly comparing LIHR and RIHR. The purpose of this study will be to compare outcomes for LIHR and RIHR at a single center. METHODS: A prospective institutional hernia database was queried for patients who underwent transabdominal LIHR or RIHR from 2012 to 2020. The patients were then matched based on the surgeon performing the operation (single, expert hernia surgeon) and laterality of repair. Standard descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: There were 282 patients who met criteria for the study, 141 LIHR and 141 RIHR; 32.6% of patients in each group had a bilateral repair (p = 1.00). LIHR patients were slightly younger (54.4 ± 15.6 vs 58.6 ± 13.8; p = 0.03) but similar in terms of BMI (27.1 ± 5.1 vs 29.1 ± 2.1; p = 0.70) and number of comorbidities (2.9 ± 2.5 vs 2.6 ± 2.2; p = 0.59). Operative time was found to be longer in the RIHR group, but when evaluating RIHR at the beginning of the study versus the end of the study, there was a 50-min decrease in operative time (p < 0.01). Recurrence rates were low for both groups (0.7% vs 1.4%; p = 0.38) with mean follow-up time 13.0 ± 13.3 months. There was only one wound infection, which was in the robotic group. No patients required return to the operating room for complications relating to their surgery. There were no 30-day readmissions in the LIHR group and three 30-day readmissions in the RIHR group (p = 0.28). CONCLUSION: LIHR and RIHR are both performed with low morbidity and have comparable overall outcomes. The total charges were increased in the RIHR group. Either LIHR or RIHR may be considered when performing inguinal hernia repair and should depend on surgeon and patient preference; continued evaluation of the outcomes is warranted.

Predicting rare outcomes in abdominal wall reconstruction using image-based deep learning models.

BACKGROUND: Deep learning models with imbalanced data sets are a challenge in the fields of artificial intelligence and surgery. The aim of this study was to develop and compare deep learning models that predict rare but devastating postoperative complications after abdominal wall reconstruction. METHODS: A prospectively maintained institutional database was used to identify abdominal wall reconstruction patients with preoperative computed tomography scans. Conventional deep learning models were developed using an 8-layer convolutional neural network and a 2-class training system (ie, learns negative and positive outcomes). Conventional deep learning models were compared to deep learning models that were developed using a generative adversarial network anomaly framework, which uses image augmentation and anomaly detection. The primary outcomes were receiver operating characteristic values for predicting mesh infection and pulmonary failure. RESULTS: Computed tomography scans from 510 patients were used with a total of 10,004 images. Mesh infection and pulmonary failure occurred in 3.7% and 5.6% of patients, respectively. The conventional deep learning models were less effective than generative adversarial network anomaly for predicting mesh infection (receiver operating characteristic 0.61 vs 0.73, P < .01) and pulmonary failure (receiver operating characteristic 0.59 vs 0.70, P < .01). Although the conventional deep learning models had higher accuracies/specificities for predicting mesh infection (0.93 vs 0.78, P < .01/.96 vs .78, P < .01) and pulmonary failure (0.88 vs 0.68, P < .01/.92 vs .67, P < .01), they were substantially compromised by decreased model sensitivity (0.25 vs 0.68, P < .01/.27 vs .73, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional deep learning models, generative adversarial network anomaly deep learning models showed improved performance on imbalanced data sets, predominantly by increasing model sensitivity. Understanding patients who are at risk for rare but devastating postoperative complications can improve risk stratification, resource utilization, and the consent process.

Preoperative botulinum toxin A (BTA) injection versus component separation techniques (CST) in complex abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR): A propensity-scored matched study.

BACKGROUND: Complete fascial closure significantly reduces recurrence rates and wound complications in abdominal wall reconstruction. While component separation techniques have clear effectiveness in closing large abdominal wall defects, preoperative botulinum toxin A has emerged as an adjunct to aid in fascial closure. Few data exist comparing preoperative botulinum toxin A to component separation techniques, and the aim was to do so in a matched study. METHODS: A prospective, single-center, hernia-specific database was queried, and a 3:1 propensity-matched study of patients undergoing open abdominal wall reconstruction from 2016 to 2021 with botulinum toxin A versus component separation techniques was performed based on body mass index, defect width, hernia volume, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wound classification. Demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Matched patients included 105 component separation techniques and 35 botulinum toxin A. There was no difference in tobacco use, diabetes, or body mass index (all P > .5). Hernia defects and volume were large for both the component separation techniques and botulinum toxin A groups (mean size: component separation techniques 286.2 ± 179.9 cm2 vs botulinum toxin A 289.7 ± 162.4 cm2; P = .73) (mean volume: 1,498.3 + 2,043.4 cm3 vs 2,914.7 + 6,539.4 cm3; P = .35). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wound classifications were equivalent (CDC3 and 4%-39.1% vs 40.0%; P = .97). Component separation techniques were more frequently performed in European Hernia Society M1 hernias (21% vs 2.9%; P = .01). The botulinum toxin A group had fewer surgical site occurrences (32.4% vs 11.4%; P = .02) and surgical site infections (11.7% vs 0%; P = .04). In multivariate analysis, botulinum toxin A was associated with lower rates of surgical site occurrences (odds ratio = 5.3; 95% confidence interval [1.4-34.4]). There was no difference in fascial closure (90.5% vs 100%; P = .11) or recurrence (12.4% vs 2.9%; P = .10) with follow-up (22.8 + 29.7 vs 9.8 + 12.7 months; P = .13). CONCLUSION: In a matched study comparing patients with botulinum toxin A versus component separation techniques, there was no difference in fascial closure rates or in hernia recurrence between the 2 groups. Preoperative botulinum toxin A can achieve similar outcomes as component separation techniques, while decreasing the frequency of surgical site occurrences.

Factors Predicting Increased Length of Stay in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have become increasingly popular in general surgery, yet no guidelines exist for an abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR)-specific program. We aimed to evaluate predictors of increased length of stay (LOS) in the AWR population to aid in creating an AWR-specific ERAS protocol. METHODS: A prospective, single institution hernia center database was queried for all patients undergoing open AWR (1999-2019). Standard statistical methods and linear and logistic regression were used to evaluate for predictors of increased LOS. Groups were compared based on LOS below or above the median LOS of 6 days (IQR = 4-8). RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 2,505 patients. On average, the high LOS group was older, with higher rates of CAD, COPD, diabetes, obesity, and pre-operative narcotic use (all P < .05). Longer LOS patients had more complex hernias with larger defects, higher rates of mesh infection/fistula, and more often required a component separation (all P < .05). Multivariate analysis identified age (ß0.04,SE0.02), BMI (ß0.06,SE0.03), hernia defect size (ß0.003,SE0.001), active mesh infection or mesh fistula (ß1.8,SE0.72), operative time (ß0.02,SE0.002), and ASA score >4 (ß3.6,SE1.7) as independently associated factors for increased LOS (all P < .05). Logistic regression showed that an increased length of stay trended toward an increased risk of hernia recurrence (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple patient and hernia characteristics are shown to significantly affect LOS, which, in turn, increases the odds of AWR failure. Weight loss, peri-operative geriatric optimization, prehabilitation of comorbidities, and operating room efficiency can enhance recovery and shorten LOS following AWR.

Outcomes of biologic versus synthetic mesh in CDC class 3 and 4 open abdominal wall reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) in a contaminated field is associated with an increased risk of wound complications, infection, and reoperation. The best method of repair and mesh choice in these operations have generated marked controversy. Our aim was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent AWR with biologic versus synthetic mesh in CDC class 3 and 4 wounds. METHODS: A prospective, single-institution database was queried for AWR using biologic or synthetic mesh in CDC Class 3 and 4 wounds. Hernia recurrence and complications were measured. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors predicting both. RESULTS: In total, 386 patients with contaminated wounds underwent AWR, 335 with biologic and 51 with synthetic mesh. Groups were similar in age, sex, BMI, and rate of diabetes. Biologic mesh patients had larger hernia defects (298 ± 233cm2 vs. 208 ± 155cm2; p = 0.004) and a higher rate of recurrent hernias (72.2% vs 47.1%; p < 0.001), comorbidities(5.8 ± 2.7 vs. 4.2 ± 2.4, p < 0.01), and a nearly fivefold increase in Class 4 wounds (47.8% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.001), while fascial closure trended to being less common (90.7% vs 96.1%; p = 0.078). Hernia recurrence was comparable between biologic and synthetic mesh (10.4% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.132). Wound complication rates were similar (36.1% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.699), but synthetic mesh had higher rates of mesh infection (1.2% vs 11.8%; p < 0.001) and infection-related resection (0% vs 7.8%, p < 0.001), with 66% of those synthetic mesh infections requiring excision. On logistic regression, wound complications (OR 5.96 [CI 1.60-22.17]; p = 0.008) and bridging mesh (OR 13.10 [CI 2.71-63.42];p = 0.030) predicted of hernia recurrence (p < 0.05), while synthetic mesh (OR 18.6 [CI 2.35-260.4] p = 0.012) and wound complications (OR 20.6 [CI 3.15-417.7] p = 0.008) predicted mesh infection. CONCLUSIONS: Wound complications in AWR with CDC class 3 and 4 wounds significantly increased mesh infection and hernia recurrence; failure to achieve fascial closure also increased hernia recurrence. Use of synthetic versus biologic mesh increased the mesh infection rate by 18.6 times.

Robotic hernia surgery IV. English version : Robotic parastomal hernia repair. Video report and preliminary results.

The surgical treatment of parastomal hernias is considered complex and is known to be prone to complications. Traditionally, this condition was treated using relocation techniques or local suture repairs. Since then, several mesh-based techniques have been proposed and are nowadays used in minimally invasive surgery. Since the introduction of robot-assisted surgery to the field of abdominal wall surgery, several adaptations to these techniques have been made, which may significantly improve patient outcomes. In this contribution, we provide an overview of available techniques in robot-assisted parastomal hernia repair. Technical considerations and preliminary results of robot-assisted modified Sugarbaker repair, robot-assisted Pauli technique, and minimally invasive use of a funnel-shaped mesh in the treatment of parastomal hernias are presented. Furthermore, challenges in robot-assisted ileal conduit parastomal hernia repair are discussed. These techniques are illustrated by photographic and video material. Besides providing a comprehensive overview of robot-assisted parastomal hernia repair, this article focuses on the specific advantages of robot-assisted techniques in the treatment of this condition.

[Robotic hernia surgery IV. German version : Robotic parastomal hernia repair. Video report and preliminary results]. / Robotische Hernienchirurgie Teil IV : Roboterassistierte endoskopische parastomale Hernienversorgung. Videobericht und Ergebnisse.

The surgical treatment of parastomal hernias is considered complex and is known to be prone to complications. Traditionally, this condition was treated using relocation techniques or local suture repairs. Since then, several mesh-based techniques have been proposed and are nowadays used in minimally invasive surgery. Since the introduction of robot-assisted surgery to the field of abdominal wall surgery, several adaptations to these techniques have been made, which may significantly improve patient outcomes. In this contribution, we provide an overview of available techniques in robot-assisted parastomal hernia repair. Technical considerations and preliminary results of robot-assisted modified Sugarbaker repair, robot-assisted Pauli technique, and minimally invasive use of a funnel-shaped mesh in the treatment of parastomal hernias are presented. Furthermore, challenges in robot-assisted ileal conduit parastomal hernia repair are discussed. These techniques are illustrated by photographic and video material. Besides providing a comprehensive overview of robot-assisted parastomal hernia repair, this article focuses on the specific advantages of robot-assisted techniques in the treatment of this condition.

Hernia recurrence after primary repair of small umbilical hernia defects.

BACKGROUND: An evidence-based approach to the repair of umbilical hernias (UH)<1 cm has yet to be defined. METHODS: A prospectively maintained, institutional hernia database was queried for patients undergoing primary suture repair of UH ≤ 1 cm. The primary outcome was recurrence and secondary outcomes were wound complications. RESULTS: Of 332 patients included (226-primary, 106-incisional), recurrence was identified in 4 (1.8%) primary versus 8 (7.5%) incisional-UH (p = 0.022), with follow-up of 4.7 ± 4.4 years. There were 10 (3.0%) wound complications: 4 (1.2%) superficial wound infections, 1 (0.3%) superficial wound dehiscence, and 5 (1.5%) seromas. On multivariable analysis of recurrence, incisional-UH had an odds ratio of 4.2 compared to primary. Suture choice, diabetes, BMI, tobacco-use history, and wound complications were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: With long term follow-up, recurrence after primary suture repair of UH ≤ 1 cm occurred in 1.8% of primary and 7.5% of incisional UH. On multivariable analysis, incisional-UH increased recurrence odds by 4.2 times compared to primary.