Outcomes of posterior component separation with transversus abdominis release for repair of abdominally based breast reconstruction donor site hernias.

PURPOSE: Abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction (ABABR) is common after mastectomy, but carries a risk of complex abdominal wall hernias. We report experience with posterior component separation (PCS) and transversus abdominis release (TAR) with permanent synthetic mesh repair of ABABR-related hernias. METHODS: Patients at Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Penn State Health were identified retrospectively. Outcomes included postoperative complications, hernia recurrence, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs): Hernia Recurrence Inventory, HerQLes Summary Score, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Intensity 3a Survey, and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). RESULTS: Forty patients underwent PCS/TAR repair of hernias resulting from pedicled (35%), free (5%), muscle-sparing TRAMs (15%), and DIEPs (28%) from August 2014 to March 2021. Following PCS, 30-day complications included superficial surgical site infection (13%), seroma (8%), and superficial wound breakdown (5%). Five patients (20%) developed clinical hernia recurrence. At a minimum of 1 year, 17 (63%) reported a bulge, 12 (44%) reported pain, median HerQLes Quality Of Life Scores improved from 33 to 63/100 (p value < 0.01), PROMIS 3a Pain Intensity Scores improved from 52 to 38 (p value < 0.05), and DRS scores were consistent with low regret (20/100). CONCLUSION: ABABR-related hernias are complex and technically challenging due to missing abdominal wall components and denervation injury. After repair with PCS/TAR, patients had high rates of recurrence and bulge, but reported improved quality of life and pain and low regret. Surgeons should set realistic expectations regarding postoperative bulge and risk of hernia recurrence.

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

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

Outcomes of redo-transversus abdominis release for abdominal wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Transversus abdominis release (TAR) is increasingly used to address complex ventral hernias; consequently, associated complications are seen more frequently. Our hernia center has a growing experience with redo-transversus abdominis release (redo-TAR) to address large, complex hernia recurrences after failed TAR. Here, we describe our outcomes after abdominal wall reconstruction with redo-TAR. STUDY DESIGN: Adults undergoing elective open, redo-TAR at our institution from January 2015 to February 2021 were queried from a prospectively collected database in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative. The primary outcome was 30-day wound morbidity. Secondary outcomes were long-term composite hernia recurrence and patient-reported quality of life. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients underwent redo-TAR. Median age was 60 years, 50.8% were female, and median BMI 31.8 kg/m2. Median recurrent hernias were 16 cm wide by 25 cm long. Frequent mechanisms of recurrence included linea semilunaris injury (27.7%), mesh fracture (18.5%), infection (16.9%), and posterior sheath disruption (15.4%). Wound complications occurred in 33.8% and 16.9% required procedural intervention. With median clinical and PRO follow-up of 12 and 19 months, respectively, the composite hernia recurrence rate was 22.5% and patients reported significantly improved quality of life (HerQLes: median + 36.7, PROMIS: median - 9.5). CONCLUSION: Redo-TAR may be performed as a salvage procedure to reconstruct complex defects after failed TAR, however, in our center, it is associated with increased wound morbidity and fairly high composite recurrence rates. Despite this, patients report improvements in quality of life and pain. Tracking outcomes after TAR will facilitate understanding how to manage its failures.

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

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

Watchful waiting is an appropriate option for peritoneal dialysis candidates with an asymptomatic ventral hernia.

PURPOSE: Expert consensus recommends that all ventral hernias be repaired prior to, or concomitantly with, peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion. We examined the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing initial PD catheter insertion, with asymptomatic ventral hernias that were not repaired and rather managed using a watchful waiting approach. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective review of patients undergoing PD catheter insertion from 2005-2019 was performed. Patients who did not undergo repair of a pre-existing ventral hernia at the time of their initial PD catheter insertion were included. The primary endpoint was ventral hernia repair following PD catheter insertion. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were included. Most patients presented with an umbilical hernia (78%). Six patients (15%) underwent ventral hernia repair at a median postoperative interval of 12 months [IQR 8-16], due to abdominal discomfort and hernia enlargement (n = 2) and incarceration (n = 2). Two patients remained asymptomatic, yet underwent ventral hernia repair at the time of renal transplantation. The cumulative incidence of ventral hernia repair within 12 and 24 months of PD catheter insertion was 13% and 21%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Watchful waiting may be an acceptable option for select patients with asymptomatic ventral hernias at the time of initial PD catheter placement. These findings highlight the need to better identify factors associated with asymptomatic ventral hernias that do not warrant concomitant repair to aid surgeons in the decision-making process.

Non-coated versus coated mesh for retrorectus ventral hernia repair: a propensity score-matched analysis of the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC).

PURPOSE: The outcomes of utilizing anti-adhesive barrier-coated mesh in the retrorectus position during open ventral hernia repair are unknown. We compared the wound-related outcomes between non-coated (NCM) and coated mesh (CM) placed in the retrorectus space. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective, open, clean ventral hernia repair with retrorectus mesh were retrospectively identified in the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative. Propensity score matching was performed based on clinically relevant demographic and operative covariates. The primary outcome was wound morbidity, defined as surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), and SSO requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI). RESULTS: 3609 patients were included (3281 NCM, 328 CM). Following 2:1 propensity score matching, rates of myofascial release remained the only statistically different matching parameter; external oblique releases were performed more frequently in the CM group (8% vs. 15%; p = 0.03). Rates of SSI (3% vs. 4%; p = 0.16) were similar between groups. Increased rates of SSO (13% vs. 18%; p = 0.045) and SSOPI (4% vs. 8%; p = 0.038) were observed in the CM group. The CM group had a higher rate of postoperative seroma (3% vs. 7%; p = 0.027) compared to the NCM group. CONCLUSION: Barrier-coated mesh in the retrorectus position was associated with increased wound morbidity requiring procedural intervention. Due to a lack of clinical benefit, the use of more costly barrier-coated mesh in the retrorectus position is not justified for routine, open ventral hernia repairs at this time.

A call for standardization of wound events reporting following ventral hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative wound events following ventral hernia repair are an important outcome measure. While efforts have been made by hernia surgeons to identify and address risk factors for postoperative wound events following VHR, the definition of these events lacks standardization. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to detail the variability of wound event definitions in recent ventral hernia literature and to propose standardized definitions for postoperative wound events following VHR. METHODS: The top 50 cited ventral hernia, peer-reviewed publications from 1995 through 2015 were identified using the search engine Google Scholar. The definition of wound event used and the incidence of postoperative wound events was recorded for each article. The number of articles that used a standardized definition for surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), or surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI) was also identified. RESULTS: Of the 50 papers evaluated, only nine (18%) used a standardized definition for SSI, SSO, or SSOPI. The papers that used standardized definitions had a smaller variability in the incidence of wound events when compared to one another and their reported rates were more consistent with recently published ventral hernia repair literature. CONCLUSION: Postoperative wound events following VHR are intimately associated with patient quality of life and long-term hernia repair durability. Standardization of the definition of postoperative wound events to include SSI, SSO, and SSOPI following VHR will improve the ability of hernia surgeons to make evidence-based decisions regarding the management of ventral hernias.