Twelve-year outcomes of watchful waiting versus surgery of mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernia in men aged 50 years and older: a randomised controlled trial.

Background: Inguinal hernia belongs to the most common surgical pathology worldwide. Approximately, one third is asymptomatic. The value of watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia has been established in a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes of a RCT comparing WW and elective surgery. Methods: In the original study, men aged ≥50 years with an asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to WW or elective repair. In the present study, the primary outcome was the 12-year crossover rate to surgery, secondary outcomes were time-to-crossover, patient regret, pain, quality of life and incarceration. Dutch Trial Registry: NTR629. Findings: Out of 496 originally analysed patients, 488 (98.4%) were evaluable for chart review (WW: n = 258, surgery: n = 230), and 200 (41.0%) for telephone contact (WW: n = 106, surgery: n = 94) between November 2021 and March 2022 with a median 12 years follow-up (IQR 9-14). After 12 years, the estimated cumulative crossover rate to surgery was 64.2%, which was higher in mildly symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients (71.7% versus 60.4%, HR 1.451, 95% CI: 1.064-1.979). Time-to-crossover was longer in asymptomatic patients (50% after 6.0 years versus 2.0 years, p = 0.019). Patient regret was higher in the WW group (37.7 versus 18.0%, p = 0.002), as well as pain/discomfort (p = 0.031). Quality of life did not differ (p = 0.737). In the WW group, incarceration occurred in 10/255 patients (3.9%). Interpretation: During 12-year follow-up, most WW patients crossed over to surgery, significantly earlier with mildly symptomatic hernia. Considering the relatively low incarceration rate, WW might still be an option in asymptomatic patients with a clear preference and being well-informed about pros and cons. Funding: The initial trial was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). This long-term study did not receive funding.

Hybrid operation technique for incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of intra- and postoperative complications.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia (IH) occurs approximately in 15% of patients after midline surgery. Surgical treatment for IHs include a solely open or solely laparoscopic approach with mesh placement. Recently, hybrid (combined laparoscopic and open) approaches have been introduced. This systematic review evaluates perioperative complications of hybrid incisional hernia repair (HIHR). METHODS: EMBASE, Medline via OvidSP, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases were searched. Studies providing data on intra- and postoperative complications in patients who underwent HIHR were included. Data on intra- and postoperative complications were extracted and meta-analyses were performed. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle Ottowa Scale, ROBINS-I tool, and Cochrane risk of bias. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020175053. RESULTS: Eleven studies (n = 1681 patients) were included. Five studies compared intra-operative complications between HIHR and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LIHR) with a pooled incidence of 1.8% in HIHR group and 2.8% in LIHR group (p = 0.13). Comparison of postoperative prevalence of surgical site occurrences (SSOs) (23% versus 26%, p = 0.02) and surgical site occurrences requiring interventions (SSOPIs) (1.5% versus 4.1%, p < 0.01) were in favour of the HIHR group. Overall postoperative complications seemed to occur less frequent in the HIHR group, though no hard statements could be made due to the vast heterogeneity in reporting between studies. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of studies were retrospective and included a small number of patients, HIHR seemingly led to less SSOs and SSOPIs. This systematic review forms a strong invitation for more randomized controlled trials to confirm the benefits of this approach.

Use of Polypropylene Strips for Reinforcement of the Cruroplasty in Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair is an effective treatment for symptomatic paraesophageal hernias. To reduce recurrence rates, the use of prosthetics for the crural repair has been suggested. Mesh-related complications are rare but known to be disastrous. To address another form of crural repair, polypropylene strips are suggested. This study aimed to assess peri- and postoperative complications of reinforcement of cruroplasty with polypropylene strips. METHODS: From 2013 to 2020, patients with a primary or recurrent type 2, 3, or 4 paraesophageal hernia that underwent cruroplasty with polypropylene strips were retrospectively reviewed. Intra- and postoperative complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The incidence of symptomatic recurrent hiatal hernia (CT or endoscopy proven) and hospital stay were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-eight patients were included. Mean age was 65 years (standard deviation 10.4), and 119 patients were female (75.3%). Almost 50% of surgeries took place between 2018 and 2020. Median follow-up was 7 months (interquartile range 17.5). Mean operation time in the primary hernia group was 159 min (standard deviation 39.0), and length of stay was 4.4 days. In 3/158 patients (2.0%), intraoperative complications occurred. Two patients developed a grade 4 and seven patients a grade 3 postoperative complication. No mortality was recorded. Twelve recurrences (8.2%) were detected in the primary hernia group and one (9.1%) in the recurrent hernia group. CONCLUSION: There were no mesh-related complications seen and symptomatic recurrence rate was low, but longer follow-up is needed.

Infectious Complication in Relation to the Prophylactic Mesh Position: The PRIMA Trial Revisited.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic mesh reinforcement has proven to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia (IH). Fear of infectious complications may withhold the widespread implementation of prophylactic mesh reinforcement, particularly in the onlay position. STUDY DESIGN: Patients scheduled for elective midline surgery were randomly assigned to a suture closure group, onlay mesh group, or sublay mesh group. The incidence, treatment, and outcomes of patients with infectious complications were assessed through examining the adverse event forms. Data were collected prospectively for 2 years after the index procedure. RESULTS: Overall, infectious complications occurred in 14/107 (13.3%) patients in the suture group and in 52/373 (13.9%) patients with prophylactic mesh reinforcement (p = 0.821). Infectious complications occurred in 17.6% of the onlay group and 10.3% of the sublay group (p = 0.042). Excluding anastomotic leakage as a cause, these incidences were 16% (onlay) and 9.7% (sublay), p = 0.073. The mesh could remain in-situ in 40/52 (77%) patients with an infectious complication. The 2-year IH incidence after onlay mesh reinforcement was 10 in 33 (30.3%) with infectious complications and 15 in 140 (9.7%) without infectious complications (p = 0.003). This difference was not statistically significant for the sublay group. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic mesh placement was not associated with increased incidence, severity, or need for invasive treatment of infectious complications compared with suture closure. Patients with onlay mesh reinforcement and an infectious complication had a significantly higher risk of developing an incisional hernia, compared with those in the sublay group.

A new three-step hybrid approach is a safe procedure for incisional hernia: early experiences with a single centre retrospective cohort.

PURPOSE: In this study, a three-step novel surgical technique was developed for incisional hernia, in which a laparoscopic procedure with a mini-laparotomy is combined: so-called 'three-step incisional hybrid repair'. The aim of this study was to reduce the risk of intestinal lacerations during adhesiolysis and recurrence rate by better symmetrical overlap placement of the mesh. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate first perioperative outcomes with this technique. METHODS: From 2016 to 2020, 70 patients (65.7% females) with an incisional hernia of > 2 and ≤ 10 cm underwent a elective three-step incisional hybrid repair in two non-academic hospitals performed by two surgeons specialised in abdominal wall surgery. Intra- and postoperative complications, operation time, hospitalisation time and hernia recurrence were assessed. RESULTS: Mean operation time was 100 min. Mean hernia size was 4.8 cm; 45 patients (64.3%) had a hernia of 1-5 cm, 25 patients (35.7%) of 6-10 cm. Eight patients had a grade 1 complication (11.4%), five patients a grade 2 (7.1%), two patients (2.8%) a grade 4 complication and one patient (1.4%) a grade 5 complication. Five patients had an intraoperative complication (7.0%), two enterotomies, one serosa injury, one omentum bleeding and one laceration of an epigastric vessel. Mean length of stay was 3.3 days. Four patients (5.6%) developed a hernia recurrence during a mean follow-up of 19.5 weeks. CONCLUSION: A three-step hybrid incisional hernia repair is a safe alternative for incisional hernia repair. Intraoperative complications rate was low.

Laparoscopic Repair with Mesh Reinforcement is a Feasible Alternative for Epigastric Hernia: A Retrospective Study Comparing Laparoscopic with Open Repair.

BACKGROUND: Epigastric hernias may lead to discomfort and pain. The mainstay of treatment is surgical repair with mesh reinforcement. The primary aim of this study was to compare the recurrence rates of laparoscopic epigastric hernia repair (LEHR) and conventional open epigastric hernia repair (OEHR) with mesh reinforcement. Secondary aims were to evaluate perioperative outcomes and quality of life. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients (58% female) from two non-academic hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. The Short-Form 36 Health Survey questionnaire and Carolina Comfort Scale were used to assess quality of life and complaints related to mesh implantation. RESULTS: Forty-two (42%) patients underwent LEHR and 57 (58%) underwent OEHR. The mean follow-up at the outpatient clinic was 7.1 months in the LEHR group and 8.1 months in the OEHR group. The mean follow-up by telephone contact was 67.8 months in the OEHR group and 58.1 months in the LEHR group. The risk of recurrence appeared to be slightly lower for LEHR (2%) compared to OEHR (7%), but this difference was not significant (p=0.298). The median surgical duration was 54 minutes in the LEHR group and 28 minutes in the OEHR group (p<0.001). The median hospitalization time was 1 day in the LEHR group and 0.5 days in the OEHR group (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic hernia repair tended to be associated with a lower risk of recurrence, but this difference was not statistically significant. Although the surgical duration was longer for the LEHR group, the postoperative outcomes were similar between groups, making laparoscopic repair a feasible alternative to the open approach for epigastric hernias.