The evolution of incisional hernia repair in Spain. A comparative analysis of results from the EVEREG registry.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the utility of the EVEREG registry in evaluating the evolution of surgical treatment for incisional hernia and its outcomes in Spain by comparing data from 2 study periods. METHODS: A retrospective comparative analysis of hernia surgeries performed between 2011 and 2015 (first period) and between 2017 and 2022 (second period) was conducted using data collected from the EVEREG registry. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed in the second cohort, including: a decrease in minimally invasive procedures (11.7% vs 8.2%; P < .001), an increase in emergency surgeries for males (31.7% vs 41.2%; P = .017), an increase in trocar hernia repairs (16% vs 26.2%; P < .0001), a reduction in suture repairs (2.8% vs 1.5%; P < .0001), and an increase in retromuscular techniques (36.4% vs 52.4%; P < .001) in open surgery with mesh. In elective surgery, there was a decrease in the average length of stay (4.9 vs 3.8 days; P < .0001), the percentage of complications (27.9% vs 24.0%; P < .0001), reoperations (3.5% vs 1.4%; P < .0001), and mortality (0.6% vs 0.2%; P = .002). Long-term outcomes included a decrease in recurrences after 12 months (20.7% vs 14.5%; P < .0001) and in chronic pain (13.7% vs 2.5%; P < .0001) and chronic infections (9.1% vs 14.5%; P < .0001) after 6 months. CONCLUSION: In recent years, there has been a significant improvement in the outcomes of incisional hernia treatment. The registry serves as a fundamental tool for assessing the evolution of hernia treatment and enables the identification of key areas for improvement and the evaluation of treatment outcomes.

Data quality validation of the Spanish Incisional Hernia Surgery Registry (EVEREG): pilot study.

PURPOSE: The Spanish Incisional Hernia Surgery Registry (EVEREG) was promoted by the Abdominal Wall Section of the Spanish Association of Surgeons, starting data collection in July 2012 and currently has more than 14,000 cases. The objective of this study was to validate the data collected through a pilot audit process. METHODS: A sample of hospitals participating in the EVEREG registry since the beginning was selected. Patients registered in these centers in the 2012-2020 period were included. A stratified random sampling was carried out, with the inclusion of 10% of registered cases per center with a minimum of 20 cases per center. At each participating center, two researchers not belonging to the center undergoing the audit checked (on site or telematically) the concordance between the data in the registry and the data contained in the case history of each patient. RESULTS: 330 patients have been analyzed, out of a total of 2673 registered, in 9 participating centers. The average accuracy has been 95.7%. Incorrect data 1.5% and missing data 2.3% CONCLUSION: The group of pilot hospitals from this EVERG incisional hernia surgery registry shows a very high precision of 95.7%. The confirmation of these findings in all the centers participating in the registry will make it possible to guarantee the quality of the studies made and their comparability with other similar national registries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: nnTrial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT03899012.

Open preperitoneal vs. open anterior repair for the treatment of emergency femoral hernia: a bicentric retrospective study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the postoperative results, in terms of complications and recurrence, between the anterior and open preperitoneal approaches in emergency femoral hernia. METHODS: This bi-centric retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent emergency femoral hernia repair between January 2010 and December 2018. Postoperative complications and recurrence were analyzed comparing anterior and open preperitoneal approaches. The predictors of complications, mortality and recurrence were investigated using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients met the inclusion criteria. Open anterior approach was performed in 128 (62.7%) patients and open preperitoneal was performed in 76 (37.3%). Open preperitoneal approach was associated with lower rates of recurrence (P = 0.033) and associated midline laparotomies (P = 0.006). Multivariable analysis identified patients with chronic nephropathy (OR, 3.801; 95%CI, 1.034-13.974; P = 0.044), preoperative bowel obstruction (OR, 2.376; 95%CI, 1.118-5.047; P = 0.024) and required midline laparotomy (OR, 12.467; 95%CI, 11.392-102.372; P = 0.030) as risk factors for complications and ASA ≥ III (OR, 7.820; 95%CI, 1.279-47.804; P = 0.026), COPD (OR, 5.064; 95%CI, 1.188-21.585; P = 0.028), necrotic contents (OR, 36.968; 95%CI, 4.640-294.543; P = 0.001), and required midline laparotomy (OR, 11.047; 95%CI, 1.943-62.809; P = 0.007). as risk factors for 90-day mortality. Male gender (OR, 4.718; 95%CI, 1.668-13.347; P = 0.003) and anterior approach (OR, 5.292; 95%CI, 1.114-25.149; P = 0.036) were risk factors for recurrence. CONCLUSION: Open preperitoneal approach may be superior to anterior approach in the emergency setting because it can avoid the morbidity of associated midline laparotomies, with a lower long-term recurrence rate.

Hernia incisional umbilical (M3). ¿Son diferentes las hernias de trócar? Análisis comparativo del registro EVEREG / Umbilical incisional hernias (M3): Are trocar-site hernias different? Comparative analysis of the EVEREG Registry

Introducción La hernia incisional (HI) es una complicación frecuente. El objetivo principal de este estudio es comparar características, complicaciones y recurrencias de las HI producidas por la colocación de un trócar laparoscópico umbilical (M3T) con las de misma localización tras cirugía abierta (M3O); y de forma secundaria, la identificación de factores de riesgo. Método Estudio observacional transversal analizando al registro EVEREG durante el periodo entre julio del 2012 y junio del 2018. Las variables principales fueron recurrencias y complicaciones postoperatorias. Se compararon ambos grupos (M3T y M3O). Se realizó regresión logística múltiple para identificar los factores de riesgo de la cohorte completa. Resultados Se incluyeron un total de 882 casos. El grupo M3O presentó un ASA superior, HI con criterios de mayor complejidad para la reparación, mayor número de recurrencias a los 12 y 24 meses (8,6 vs. 2,5%; p < 0,0001 y 9,3 vs. 2,9%; p < 0,0001, respectivamente) y complicaciones postoperatorias (21,9 vs. 14,6%; p = 0,02). Se identificaron como factores de riesgo para la aparición de complicaciones postoperatorias, la reparación previa, la duración de la intervención y el requerimiento de procedimientos asociados, y para las recidivas: la ausencia de especialista de pared abdominal, la reparación previa y la aparición de complicaciones. El análisis por puntuación de propensión no detectó diferencias significativas en complicaciones y recurrencias. Conclusiones Las HI M3 de trócar umbilical son menos complejas que las originadas por cirugía abierta. La complejidad no se relaciona con el origen de la hernia, sino con sus características y las del paciente (AU)

Introduction Incisional hernia (HI), in open and laparoscopic surgery, is a very frequent complication. HI located in the umbilical region are called M3. The main aim of this study is to compare HI produced by the placement of an umbilical laparoscopic trocar (M3T) with those located in M3 in open surgery (M3O) in terms of basal characteristics, complications and recurrences; and secondarily the identification of risk factors. Method Cross-sectional observational study based on the national prospective registry EVEREG during the period of July 2012 - June 2018. The main variables were recurrences and postoperative complications. Both groups (M3T and M3O) were compared. Multiple logistic regression was performed to identify the risk factors of the entire cohort. Results 882 had a follow-up time longer than 12 months. M3O group presented superior ASA-Class, more complex HI and previous repair. It also presented a higher recurrence rate at 12 and 24 months (8.6 vs. 2.5%; p < 0,0001 and 9.3 vs. 2.9%; p < 0.0001) and higher postoperative complications rate (21.9 vs. 14.6%; p = 0.02). Previous repair, intervention length and associated procedures requirement were identified as risk factors for postoperative complications. Absence of a specialist present during surgery, previous repair, and the absence of complications were identified as risk factors for recurrence. In the PSM analysis no differences were detected in of complications and recurrences. Conclusions HI M3O is more complex than M3T. The complexity is not related to the origin of the hernia but to its characteristics and those of the patient (AU)

Implementing a protocol to prevent incisional hernia in high-risk patients: a mesh is a powerful tool.

PURPOSE: The small bites (SB) technique for closure of elective midline laparotomies (EMLs) and a prophylactic mesh (PM) in high-risk patients are suggested by the guidelines to prevent incisional hernias (IHs) and fascial dehiscence (FD). Our aim was to implement a protocol combining both the techniques and to analyze its outcomes. METHODS: Prospective data of all EMLs were collected for 2 years. Results were analyzed at 1 month and during follow-up. The incidence of HI and FD was compared by groups (M = Mesh vs. S = suture) and by subgroups depending on using SB. RESULTS: A lower number of FD appeared in the M group (OR 0.0692; 95% CI 0.008-0.56; P = 0.01) in 197 operations. After a mean follow-up of 29.23 months (N = 163; min. 6 months), with a lower frequency of IH in M group (OR 0.769; 95% CI 0.65-0.91; P < 0.0001). (33) The observed differences persisted after a propensity matching score: FD (OR 0.355; 95% CI 0.255-0.494; P < 0.0001) and IH (OR 0.394; 95% CI 0.24-0.61; P < 0.0001). On comparing suturing techniques by subgroups, both mesh subgroups had better outcomes. PM was the main factor related to the reduction of IH (HR 11.794; 95% CI 4.29-32.39; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Following the protocol using PM and SB showed a lower rate of FD and HI. A PM is safe and effective for the prevention of both HI and FD after MLE, regardless of the closure technique used.

Closure of Iterative Laparotomy in Patients With Previous Mesh Reinforcement a Cohorts' Study. Short-Term Results.

Purpose: Due to extension of prophylactic mesh indications use will become more common to find patients receiving an iterative laparotomy (IL) over a previous reinforced abdominal wall. The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes after IL in patients with previous mesh reinforcement. Methods: This study was a prospective secondary analysis of midline laparotomy closure performed from July 2017 to July 2018 registered in PHACPA study (NCT02658955). IL were included and surgery characteristics and outcomes analyzed. We compared two groups: with (PreM) or without previous prophylactic onlay mesh reinforcement (PreS) Subgroups' analysis, risk factors for complications and survival free hernia analysis were performed. Results: 121 IL were analyzed. Only obesity was associated with higher SSO (OR 2.6; CI 95% 1.02-6.90; p = 0.04) There were 15 incisional hernias (IH) (14.4%). Group with previous mesh reinforcement (pre M) had a higher statistically significative incidence of IH (OR = 1.21; CI 95% 1.05-1.39; p = 0.015). Use of slowly absorbable suture (OR = 0.74; CI 95% 0.60-0.91; p = 0.001), USP 2/0 suture (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; p = 0.033), and small bites technique (OR = 0.81; CI 95% 0.72-0.90; p = 0.011) were associated with less IH. Conclusion: IL has a high percentage of complications and IH. In case of IL without previous reinforcement, a mesh can help to reduce IH. Our data cannot clearly support any technique to close an IL with previous mesh.

Early outcomes of component separation techniques: an analysis of the Spanish registry of incisional Hernia (EVEREG).

AIM: To analyze the outcomes of component separation techniques (CST) to treat incisional hernias (IH) in a large multicenter cohort of patients. METHODS: All IH repair using CST, registered in EVEREG from July 2012 to December 2019, were included. Data on the pre-operative patient characteristics and comorbidities, IH characteristics, surgical technique, complications, and recurrence were collected. Outcomes between anterior (ACS) and posterior component separation (PCS) techniques were compared. Risk factors for complications and recurrences were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 1536 patients underwent CST (45.5% females) with a median age of 64.0 years and median body mass index (BMI) of 29.7 kg/m2. ACS was the most common technique (77.7%). Overall complications were frequent in both ACS and PCS techniques (36.5%), with a higher frequency of wound infection (10.6% vs. 7.0%; P = 0.05) and skin necrosis (4.4% vs. 0.1%; P < 0.0001) with the ACS technique. Main factors leading to major complications were mesh explant (OR 1.72; P = 0.001), previous repair (OR 0.75; P = 0.038), morbid obesity (OR 0.67; P = 0.015), ASA grade (OR 0.62; P < 0.0001), COPD (OR 0.52; P < 0.0001), and longitudinal diameter larger than 10 cm (OR 0.58; P = 0.001). After a minimum follow-up of 6 months (median 15 months; N = 590), 59 (10.0%) recurrences were diagnosed. Operations performed in a non-specialized unit were significantly associated with recurrences (HR 4.903, CI 1.64-14.65; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: CST is a complex procedure with a high rate of complications. Both ACS and PCS techniques have similar complication and recurrence rates. Operations performed in a specialized unit have better outcomes.

Long-term follow-up of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after emergency laparotomy. A retrospective controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of incisional hernias with a prophylactic mesh in emergency surgery is controversial. The present study aimed to analyze the long-term results of prophylactic mesh used for preventing incisional hernia after emergency midline laparotomies. METHODS: This study was a registered (NCT04578561) retrospective analysis of patients who underwent an emergency midline laparotomy between January 2009 and July 2010 with a follow-up period of longer than 2 years. Long-term outcomes and risk factors for the development of incisional hernias between patients who received a prophylactic reinforcement mesh (Group M) and suture (Group S) were compared. RESULTS: From an initial 266 emergency midline laparotomies, 187 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 64.4 months (SD 35). Both groups had similar characteristics, except for a higher rate of previous operations (62 vs. 43.2%; P = 0.01) and operation due to a revision laparotomy (32.5 vs.13%; P = 0.02) in the M group. During follow-up, 29.9% of patients developed an incisional hernia (Group S 36.6% vs. Group M 14.3%; P = 0.002). Chronic mesh infections were diagnosed in 2 patients, but no mesh explants were needed, and no patient in the M group developed chronic pain. Long-term risk factors for incisional hernia were as follows: smoking (HR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.318-4.624; P = 0.05), contaminated surgery (HR = 2.98; 95% CI 1.142-7.8; P = 0.02), surgical site infection (SSI; HR = 3.83; 95% CI 1.86-7.86; P = 0.001), and no use of prophylactic mesh (HR = 5.09; 95% CI 2.1-12.2; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Incidence of incisional hernias after emergency midline laparotomies is high and increases with time. High-risk patients, contaminated surgery, and surgical site infection (SSI) benefit from mesh reinforcement. Prophylactic mesh use is safe and feasible in emergencies with a low long-term complication rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04578561. www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Correction to: Incidence of Incisional Hernia After Emergency Subcostal Unilateral Laparotomy: Does Augmentation Prophylaxis Play a Role?

In the original article some of the column headings in Tables 1-4 were mislabeled.

Incidence of Incisional Hernia After Emergency Subcostal Unilateral Laparotomy: Does Augmentation Prophylaxis Play a Role?

BACKGROUND: Few data are available about the frequency of incisional hernia in an emergency subcostal laparotomy. Our objective is to analyze the incidence of incisional hernia after emergency subcostal laparotomy and evaluate if prophylactic mesh could help prevent it. METHODS: This study is a monocentric retrospective analysis following STROBE guideline statements of all patients who underwent an emergency subcostal laparotomy between January 2011 and July 2017 in our University Hospital. We compared complications and incidence of incisional hernia between patients who received sutures (Group S; N = 203) and patients with prophylactic onlay mesh (Group M; N = 80). A multivariate risk factor analysis of incisional hernia was performed. An incisional hernia-estimated risk calculator equation was created. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients were analyzed. There were 80 patients in Group M and 203 in Group S. In short-term outcomes, length of surgery (213 ± 115 min vs 165 ± 73.3 min, P = 0.001) and hospital stay (16.4 ± 18.7 vs 11.6 days ± 13.4, P = 0.038) were longer in Group M. Long-term follow-up was conducted in 207 patients with a mean follow-up time of 39.3 ± 23 months. Incisional hernia was detected in 29 (19.1%) patients in Group S but in only two (3.8%) patients in Group M (P = 0.008). In the multivariate analysis, a risk factor analysis included wound infection (4.91 HR (2.12-11.4); P < 0.001), previous hernia repair (2.86 HR (1.24-6.61); P = 0.014), and shock (2.64 HR (1.01-6.93); P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of incisional hernia after emergency subcostal laparotomy is high. Risk factors are wound infection, shock, and previous hernia surgery. The use of prophylactic mesh augmentation was safe and reduced the incidence of incisional hernia.