Comparing the outcomes of external oblique and transversus abdominus release using the AHSQC database.

PURPOSE: Myofascial release techniques at the time of complex hernia repair allow for tension-free closure of the midline fascia. Two common techniques are the open external oblique release (EOR) and the transversus abdominis release (TAR). Each technique has its reported advantages and disadvantages, but there have been few comparative studies. The purpose of this project was to compare the outcomes of these two myofascial release techniques. METHODS: The Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) database was queried and produced a data set on 24 May 2018. All patients undergoing open incision hernia repair with an open EOR or TAR were evaluated, and outcomes were compared including hernia recurrence, quality of life, and 30-day wound-related complications. RESULTS: 3610 patients met the inclusion criteria of undergoing open incisional hernia repair (501 undergoing EOR and 3109 undergoing TAR). Seventy surgeons from 50 institutions contributed EOR patients, and 124 surgeons from 89 institutions contributed TAR patients with no differences between the two groups in surgeons' affiliation. Comparing open EOR and TAR showed no significant differences in hernia recurrence, quality of life, or 30-day surgical site infection rate. EOR had a significantly higher rate of surgical site occurrences compared with TAR (p < 0.05); however, this did not result in an increase in surgical site occurrences requiring procedural interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Equivalent outcomes were achieved using the EOR or TAR techniques in the open repair of incisional hernias. Both techniques offer consistently good outcomes and are important adjuncts in the repair of complex incisional hernias.

Primary non-complicated midline ventral hernia: overview of approaches and controversies.

Umbilical hernias and epigastric hernias are some of the most common hernias in the world. Umbilical and epigastric hernia defects can range from small (<1 cm) to very large/complex hernias, and treatment options should be tailored to the clinical situation. Repair techniques include open, laparoscopic, and robotics options, each with advantages and disadvantages. A mesh-based repair is indicated in most cases due to having fewer associated recurrences. Overall outcomes are favorable following umbilical and epigastric hernia repairs; however, some patients have chronic complaints mostly related to recurrences. This report is an overview of available techniques for repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias. It also discusses ongoing controversies related to umbilical and epigastric hernia repairs, the limitations of available literature, and the need for future research.

Prophylactic mesh used in ileal conduit formation following radical cystectomy: a retrospective cohort.

PURPOSE: Given the difficulty of durable repairs, there is continued interest in hernia prevention. One emerging prevention technique for parastomal hernias is prophylactic mesh placement, whereby mesh is inserted during the index procedure as hernia prophylaxis. We evaluated our experience using prophylactic mesh when creating an ileal conduit. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing robotic cystectomy with ileal conduit from 6/2010 to 8/2017. Patient demographics and operative/perioperative outcomes were documented. We evaluated hernia recurrence using postoperative computed tomography scanning or physical exam. Prophylactic mesh was inserted at the operating surgeon's discretion using a synthetic resorbable or biologic mesh. RESULTS: During the study period, 38 patients underwent robotic-assisted cystectomy with ileal conduit formation. Average patient age was 68 years, with 28 (74%) male and 35 (92%) Caucasian patients. Three patients (8%) required conversion to open, and one patient (3%) had a concomitant colorectal resection. Thirty-one (88%) patients had postoperative computed tomography scanning. Prophylactic mesh was used in 18 patients (47%) in a retrorectus position. Of these, 15 (83%) patients had synthetic resorbable mesh and 3 (17%) patients had biologic mesh. At average follow-up of 21 months, one hernia recurred (5%) in a patient without mesh placement at the time of ileal conduit. At an average follow-up of 11 months, there have been no recurrences and no mesh-related complications in the prophylactic mesh group. CONCLUSIONS: Using prophylactic mesh in ileal conduit, creation is feasible and may decrease the parastomal hernia formation rate. Further study of using synthetic resorbable and biologic meshes for hernia prophylaxis is warranted.

Suture to wound length ratio in abdominal wall closure: how well are we doing?

PURPOSE: Research has established that a ≥4:1 suture to wound (S:W) length ratio decreases incisional hernias. We evaluated our ability to obtain a 4:1 S:W length ratio in a surgery residency program. METHODS: Consecutive abdominal wall closures from 12/1/2013 through 4/9/2015 were reviewed. The length of the incisions and amount of suture used were measured. Patient demographics and operative variables were documented and compared related to inability to obtain a 4:1 ratio. RESULTS: One hundred patients underwent abdominal closure with S:W length measurements. Average wound length was 18.3 cm; average suture length used was 84.5 cm; and average S:W length ratio was 4.6:1. An S:W length ratio of ≥4:1 was achieved in 76% of cases. There was no difference in race, age, gender, BMI, type of procedure, or resident level in obtaining a 4:1 S:W length ratio. There was a significantly higher rate of not achieving a 4:1 ratio when two residents closed. Postoperative infection rate and hernia rate increased when a 4:1 S:W length ratio was not achieved compared with an adequate S:W length ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the known importance of achieving a 4:1 S:W length ratio for abdominal closure, it was only achieved in 76% of study patients. Improved education on the importance of fascial closure is needed.