Ventral hernia repair in India: a Delphi consensus.

PURPOSE: While research on inguinal hernias is well-documented, ventral/incisional hernias still require investigation. In India, opinions on laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) techniques are contested. The current consensus aims to standardize LVHR practice and identify gaps and unfulfilled demands that compromise patient safety and therapeutic outcomes. METHODS: Using the modified Delphi technique, panel of 14 experts (general surgeons) came to a consensus. Two rounds of consensus were conducted online. An advisory board meeting was held for the third round, wherein survey results were discussed and the final statements were decided with supporting clinical evidence. RESULTS: Experts recommended intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) plus/trans-abdominal retromuscular/extended totally extraperitoneal/mini- or less-open sublay operation/transabdominal preperitoneal/trans-abdominal partial extra-peritoneal/subcutaneous onlay laparoscopic approach/laparoscopic intracorporeal rectus aponeuroplasty as valid minimal access surgery (MAS) options for ventral hernia (VH). Intraperitoneal repair technique is the preferred MAS procedure for primary umbilical hernia < 4 cm without diastasis; incisional hernia in the presence of a vertical single midline incision; symptomatic hernia, BMI > 40 kg/m2, and defect up to 4 cm; and for MAS VH surgery with grade 3/4 American Society of Anaesthesiologists. IPOM plus is the preferred MAS procedure for midline incisional hernia of width < 4 cm in patients with a previous laparotomy. Extraperitoneal repair technique is the preferred MAS procedure for L3 hernia < 4 cm; midline hernias < 4 cm with diastasis; and M5 hernia. CONCLUSION: The consensus statements will help standardize LVHR practices, improve decision-making, and provide guidance on MAS in VHR in the Indian scenario.

OSSI (Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society of India) Guidelines for Patient and Procedure Selection for Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: India is the largest hub for bariatric and metabolic surgery in Asia. OSSI is committed to improve the quality of care and set the standards for its practice in India. METHODS: The first draft of OSSI guidelines was prepared by the secretary, Dr. Praveen Raj under the guidance of current President, Dr. Arun Prasad. All executive council members were given voting privileges, and the proposed guidelines were circulated on email for approval of the executive council. Guidelines were finalized after 100% agreement from all voting members and were also circulated among all OSSI members for their suggestions. RESULTS: OSSI upholds the BMI criteria for bariatric and metabolic surgery of 2011 IFSO-APC guidelines. In addition to this, we recognize that waist circumference of ≥ 80 cm in females and ≥ 90 cm in males along with obesity related co-morbidities may be considered for surgery. In addition to standard procedures as recommended by IFSO, OSSI acknowledges the additional procedures, and a review of literature for these procedures is presented in the discussion. CONCLUSION: The burden of obesity in India is one of the highest in the world and with numbers of bariatric and metabolic procedures rising rapidly; there is a need for country specific guidelines. The Indian population is unique in its phenotype, genotype and nutritional make up. This document enlists guidelines for surgeons and allied health practitioners as also multiple other stake-holders like primary health physicians, policy makers, insurance companies and the Indian government.

Correction to: Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.

This article was updated to include the middle initial of author L. N. Jorgensen's name.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)): Part B.

In 2014 the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias". Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. METHODS: For the development of the original guidelines all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based-Medicine. For the present update all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne) the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. RESULTS: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite still insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initially guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.

In 2014, the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias." Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. METHODS: For the development of the original guidelines, all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For the present update, all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne), the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. RESULTS: Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques, it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. CONCLUSION: Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initial guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Previously implanted intra-peritoneal mesh increases morbidity during re-laparoscopy: a retrospective, case-matched cohort study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) with intra-peritoneal mesh placement is standard surgical treatment of abdominal wall hernias. During laparoscopic re-intervention, we examined adhesions that develop after previous intra-peritoneal mesh placement and ascertained morbidity and risk of adverse events. METHODS: This is a retrospective, case-matched comparison of three patient groups-previous intra-peritoneal mesh (Group A), previous abdominal surgery (Group B) and no previous abdominal surgery (Group C). Matching was based on surgical procedure performed during laparoscopic re-intervention in Group A. Adhesions were described as grade, extent of previous mesh/scar involvement, involvement of abdominal quadrants and dissection technique required for adhesiolysis, each component being assigned value from 0 to 4. Total adhesion score (TAS) was generated as summative score for each patient (0 to 16). Access/adhesiolysis-related injuries, additional port requirement, deviations from planned surgery, operative time and length of hospital stay was noted. Relative risk of adverse events, i.e., inadvertent injuries and deviations from planned surgery, was calculated for Group A. RESULTS: Adhesion characteristics were most severe (highest TAS) in Group A. Access injuries occurred in 5, 4, 1.3% in Groups A, B, C, respectively. Adhesiolysis-related injury rate was 9%, 2.6% in Groups A, B, respectively. Relative risk of adverse events was 4 for Group A (compared to Groups B and C combined). Additional port requirement was highest for Group A. Mean operative time and length of hospital stay was significantly longer in Group A for LVHR. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-peritoneal mesh placement is associated with adhesion formation that may increase risk during subsequent laparoscopic surgery.

Minimally Invasive Anal Fistula Treatment (MAFT)-An Appraisal of Early Results in 416 Patients.

Minimally invasive anal fistula treatment (MAFT) was introduced to minimize early postoperative morbidity, preserve sphincter continence, and reduce recurrence. We report our early experience with MAFT in 416 patients. Preoperative MRI was performed in 150 patients initially and subsequently thereafter. The technique involves fistuloscope-aided localization of internal fistula opening, examination and fulguration of all fistula tracks, and secure stapled closure of internal fistula opening within anal canal/rectum. MAFT was performed as day-care procedure in 391 patients (93.9 %). During surgery, internal fistula opening could not be located in 100 patients (24 %). Seven patients required readmission to hospital. Mean visual analog scale scores for pain on discharge and at 1 week were 3.1 (1-6) and 1.6 (0-3), respectively. Mean duration for return to normal activity was 3.2 days (2-11 days). Fistula recurrence was observed in 35/134 patients (26.1 %) at 1 year follow-up. MAFT may be performed as day-care procedure with benefits of less pain, absence of perianal wounds, faster recovery, and preservation of sphincter continence. However, long-term results from more centers are needed especially for recurrence.

Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)-part 1.

Guidelines are increasingly determining the decision process in day-to-day clinical work. Guidelines describe the current best possible standard in diagnostics and therapy. They should be developed by an international panel of experts, whereby alongside individual experience, above all, the results of comparative studies are decisive. According to the results of high-ranking scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, statements and recommendations are formulated, and these are graded strictly according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines can therefore be valuable in helping particularly the young surgeon in his or her day-to-day work to find the best decision for the patient when confronted with a wide and confusing range of options. However, even experienced surgeons benefit because by virtue of a heavy workload and commitment, they often find it difficult to keep up with the ever-increasing published literature. All guidelines require regular updating, usually every 3 years, in line with progress in the field. The current Guidelines focus on technique and perioperative management of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and constitute the first comprehensive guidelines on this topic. In this issue of Surgical Endoscopy, the first part of the Guidelines is published including sections on basics, indication for surgery, perioperative management, and key points of technique. The next part (Part 2) of the Guidelines will address complications and comparisons between open and laparoscopic techniques. Part 3 will cover mesh technology, hernia prophylaxis, technique-related issues, new technologic developments, lumbar and other unusual hernias, and training/education.

Iatrogenic enterotomy in laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair: a single center experience of 2,346 patients over 17 years.

PURPOSE: Iatrogenic enterotomy (IE) during laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair (LIVHR) is reported to be associated with poorer surgical outcomes. We report our experience with diagnosis, management and complications in patients who had IE during LIVHR at our tertiary referral institute between 1994 and 2011. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of 2,346 patients who underwent LIVHR from 1994 to 2011. We identified 33 patients who had IE during LIVHR. All surgical procedures were performed by five consultants and fellows under supervision who followed a standardized operative protocol. Patients were followed up for 6 months to evaluate morbidity, mortality, additional surgical procedures, unplanned readmissions and hospital stay. RESULTS: Mortality occurred in 2 patients (6 %). Complications occurred in 16 patients (48.5 %). Median hospital stay was 3 days (2-36). Unplanned readmission was required in 6 patients (18 %). In 18 patients, (55 %) additional surgical procedures were required within 6 months of LIVHR. In 5 patients, the enterotomy was recognized postoperatively. These patients had worst outcomes [mortality 40 %, additional surgical procedures were required in all patients (100 %) and median hospital stay was 12 days (range 7-36)]. CONCLUSION: Iatrogenic enterotomy is a serious complication during LIVHR. IE is associated with mortality, morbidity, additional surgical procedures, unplanned readmissions and prolonged hospital stay. In patients where IE was recognized postoperatively, the prognosis was worst.

Single port versus multiple port laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a comparative study.

Single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) was introduced to minimize postoperative morbidity and improve cosmesis. We performed a comparative study to assess feasibility, safety and perceived benefits of SPLC. Two groups of patients (104 each) with comparable demographic characteristics were selected for SPLC and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC) between May 2010 to March 2011. SPLC was performed using X cone® with 5 mm extra long telescope and 3 ports for hand instruments. MPLC was performed with traditional 4 port technique. A large window was always created during dissection to obtain the critical view of safety. Data collection was prospective. The primary end points were post-operative pain and surgical complications. Secondary end points were patient assessed cosmesis and satisfaction scores and operating time. The mean VAS scores for pain in SPLC group were higher on day 0 (SPLC 3.37 versus MPLC 2.72, p = 0.03) and equivalent to MPLC group on day 1(SPLC 1.90 versus MPLC 1.79, p = 0.06). Number of patients requiring analgesia for breakthrough pain (SPLC 21.1 % versus MPLC 26.9 %, p = 0.31) was similar. Number and nature of surgical complications was similar (SPLC 17.3 % versus MPLC 21.2 %, p =0.59). Mean patient assessed cosmesis scores (SPLC 7.96 versus MPLC 7.16, p = 0.003) and mean patient satisfaction scores (SPLC 8.66 versus MPLC 8.16, p = 0.004) were higher in SPLC group indicating better cosmesis and greater patient satisfaction. SPLC took longer to perform (61 min versus 26 min, p = 0.00). Conversion was required in 5 patients in SPLC group. SPLC appears to be feasible and safe with cosmetic benefits in selected patients. However, challenges remain to improve operative ergonomics. SPLC needs to be proven efficacious with a high safety profile to be accepted as standard laparoscopic technique.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Surgery (SILS) in Biliary and Pancreatic Diseases.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard for gallbladder removal and the most common laparoscopic procedure worldwide. With the advent of laparoscopic surgery and its continuous development, the focus has shifted to 'scarless' surgery. In recent times, the innovative technique of single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has been applied in gallbladder removal and even more complex biliopancreatic procedures to further minimize the invasiveness of the surgery. Newer developments in laparoscopic equipments and instrumentation have helped to further evolve this field of minimally invasive surgery. Literature search was performed using the following online search engines: Google, Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and the online Springer link library. The terms used for the search were as follows: SILS, LESS, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, single-port laparoscopic surgery, SILS cholecystectomy, and SILS pancreatic surgery. Articles that matched the search criteria were selected and extensively reviewed. Moreover, pertinent information on instrumentation and technology for SILS and LESS was obtained by accessing websites of manufacturers. Although SILS represents the search for an essentially scarless surgery, there is still not a widespread use and uniformity of this procedure. SILS is performed either by single- or multiple-port technique. In the present article, we present a review of the potential benefits, limitations, and risks of SILS in biliary and pancreatic diseases. There are many studies showing benefits in cholecystectomy. A few case reports have also emerged about its feasibility in procedures such as cystogastrostomy and limited pancreatic resection. Further research and development of this technique is needed to arrive at a tangible conclusion about the perceived benefits of SILS. Randomized studies to compare SILS with traditional laparoscopy are essential.