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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight mesh and heavyweight polypropylene mesh in endoscopic totally extraperitoneal groin hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The purported advantage of lightweight large-pore meshes is improved biocompatibility that translates into lesser postoperative pain and earlier rehabilitation. However, there are concerns of increased hernia recurrence rate. We undertook a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare early and late outcome measures with the use of a lightweight (Ultrapro) mesh and heavyweight (Prolene) mesh in endoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) groin hernia repair. METHODS: A prospective study was performed on 402 patients (191 in Ultrapro and 211 in Prolene group) with bilateral groin hernias who underwent endoscopic TEP groin hernia repair from March 2006 to June 2007. All operations were performed by five consultants following a standardized operative protocol. Chronic groin pain and hernia recurrence were evaluated as primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measure were early postoperative pain, operative time, number of fixation devices required to fix the mesh, return to normal daily activities of work, seroma, and testicular pain. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, incidence in Ultrapro versus Prolene group for chronic groin pain was 1.6% vs. 4.7% (p = 0.178) and recurrence was 1.3% vs. 0.2% (p = 0.078). In Ultrapro versus Prolene group, mean visual analogue score for postoperative pain at day 7 was 1.07 vs. 1.31 (p = 0.00), mean return to normal activities was 1.82 vs. 2.09 days (p = 0.00), and mean number of fixation devices per patient required to fix the mesh was 4.22 vs. 4.08 (p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: Lightweight meshes appear to have advantages in terms of lesser pain and early return to normal activity. However, more patients had hernia recurrence with lightweight meshes, especially for larger hernias. We surmise that the lightweight meshes have greater tendency to get displaced from their intended position during desufflation at the conclusion of endoscopic TEP repair.

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.

Consensus statement for diagnosis of obesity, abdominal obesity and the metabolic syndrome for Asian Indians and recommendations for physical activity, medical and surgical management.

Asian Indians exhibit unique features of obesity; excess body fat, abdominal adiposity, increased subcutaneous and intra-abdominal fat, and deposition of fat in ectopic sites (liver, muscle, etc.). Obesity is a major driver for the widely prevalent metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Asian Indians in India and those residing in other countries. Based on percentage body fat and morbidity data, limits of normal BMI are narrower and lower in Asian Indians than in white Caucasians. In this consensus statement, we present revised guidelines for diagnosis of obesity, abdominal obesity, the metabolic syndrome, physical activity, and drug therapy and bariatric surgery for obesity in Asian Indians after consultations with experts from various regions of India belonging to the following medical disciplines; internal medicine, metabolic diseases, endocrinology, nutrition, cardiology, exercise physiology, sports medicine and bariatric surgery, and representing reputed medical institutions, hospitals, government funded research institutions, and policy making bodies. It is estimated that by application of these guidelines, additional 10-15% of Indian population would be labeled as overweight/obese and would require appropriate management. Application of these guidelines on countrywide basis is also likely to have a deceleration effect on the escalating problem of T2DM and cardiovascular disease. These guidelines could be revised in future as appropriate, after another large and countrywide consensus process. Till that time, these should be used by clinicians, researchers and policymakers dealing with obesity and related diseases.

Limited-conversion technique: a safe and viable alternative to conversion in laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: During laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair (LVIHR), conversion to conventional (open) technique is required when safe adhesiolysis is not possible, incarcerated bowel in hernial sac cannot be reduced or for repair of iatrogenic enterotomies. A formal laparotomy in these circumstances entails significant morbidity due to factors such as wound infection, prolonged immobility, and longer hospital stay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a period between 1994 and 2007, 1,503 LVIHRs were performed at our centre following a standardized protocol by five consultants and fellows. Out of these, 6 patients had a formal laparotomy in the initial part of our experience and 26 patients had a limited conversion to facilitate completion of LVIHR. We have devised the term "limited conversion" for the procedure wherein bowel reduction/adhesiolysis/enterotomy repair was performed through a small targeted skin incision. This was followed by laparoscopic placement of intraperitoneal mesh. RESULTS: Conversion to an open procedure was required in 32 (2.1%) out of 1,503 LVIHR procedures. Twenty-six patients underwent a limited conversion and completion of the repair by laparoscopy. All but one of these patients had intraperitoneal placement of mesh by laparoscopic route. The wound complication rate was 3.8% (one patient), the mean hospital stay was 2.1 days, and mean operative time was 124 min. CONCLUSION: Limited conversion offers a safe alternative to a formal laparotomy in patients with bowel incarcerated in hernial sacs or in patients requiring extensive bowel adhesiolysis. Patient morbidity is reduced due to the targeted skin incision whilst retaining several advantages of a minimal access approach viz. laparoscopic evaluation of the entire abdominal wall and placement of a large intraperitoneal prosthesis.

Laparoscopic repair of incarcerated ventral abdominal wall hernias.

BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopy in the management of incarcerated (irreducible) ventral hernia remains to be elucidated. We present our experience of the laparoscopic repair of incarcerated primary ventral and incisional hernias over an 8-year period. METHODS: A retrospective review of the records of 112 patients undergoing laparoscopic repair for incarcerated primary ventral and incisional hernias from January 1998 to February 2006 was performed. The patient demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative complications were assessed. RESULTS: The procedure was completed entirely laparoscopically in 103 patients (91.9%) with the placement of intraperitoneal mesh. A sutured tissue repair (without mesh) was performed in seven patients and hernia repair was abandoned after laparoscopy in two patients. Five patients required limited conversion by a targeted skin incision for the resection of nonviable bowel (three patients) and to complete adhesiolysis within multiloculated hernial sacs (two patients). The contents of the hernial sacs were incarcerated omentum (42 patients), small bowel (28 patients), large bowel (six patients), and omentum and small bowel (34 patients). Of these, seven patients presented with signs of acute small-bowel obstruction. The mean size of the largest defect through which incarceration occurred was 3.5 +/- 1.6 cm (range 1.5-7.5 cm) and the mean size of the mesh used was 379 +/- 210 cm2 (range 225-780 cm2). The mean operative time was 96 +/- 40.8 min (range 50-170 min). Inadvertent enterotomy occurred in four patients during bowel reduction and adhesiolysis. In two patients, the enterotomy was repaired by total laparoscopy followed by mesh placement, and two patients required conversion to formal laparotomy due to long-segment tears and peritoneal contamination. The average postoperative hospital stay was 2.8 +/- 1.5 days (range 1-6.5 days). Postoperative complications occurred in 20.5% patients. There was no mortality. Hernia recurred in three patients at a mean follow-up of 48 +/- 28.3 months (range 1-84 months). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ventral abdominal wall hernia repair can be safely performed with a low complication rate, even in incarcerated hernias. Careful bowel reduction with adhesiolysis and mesh repair in an uncontaminated abdomen with a 5-cm mesh overlap remain key factors for a successful outcome.

[Not Available].

Spigelian hernia occurs through slit like defect in the anterior abdominal wall adjacent to the semilunar line. Most of spigelian hernias occur in the lower abdomen where the posterior sheath is deficient. The hernia ring is a well-defined defect in the transverses aponeurosis. The hernial sac, surrounded by extraperitoneal fatty tissue, is often interparietal passing through the transversus and the internal oblique aponeuroses and then spreading out beneath the intact aponeurosis of the external oblique. Spigelian hernia is in itself very rare and more over it is difficult to diagnose clinically. It has been estimated that it constitutes 0.12% of abdominal wall hernias. The spigelian hernia has been repaired by both conventional and laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic management of spigelian hernia is well established. Most of the authors have managed it by transperitoneal approach either by placing the mesh in intraperitoneal position or by raising the peritoneal flap and placing the mesh in extraperitoneal space. There have also been case reports of management of spigelian hernia by total extraperitoneal approach. We retrospectively reviewed our experience of ten patients between 1997 and 2007. Eight patients (8/10) presented with abdominal pain and two patients (2/10) were asymptomatic. In six patients (6/10) we performed an intraperitoneal onlay IPOM repair, in two patients (2/10) transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP), and in two (2/10) total extraperitoneal repair (TEP). There were no recurrences, or other morbidity at mean follow up period of 3.2 years (range 6 months to 10 years).

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.

Laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy for biliary strictures: the experience of 10 patients.

Hepaticojejunostomy is performed to reestablish bilioenteric continuity. During a 5-year period between July 1998 and July 2003, the authors attempted hepaticojejunostomy by a total laparoscopic approach in 10 patients with benign stricture disorders of the extrahepatic biliary tree. Six of these patients had type 1 (extrahepatic, fusiform) choledochal cyst and presented with pain, fever, and jaundice. Four of the patients had iatrogenic biliary strictures after cholecystectomy (2 patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 2 patients after open cholecystectomy). These patients had a variable presentation 1 to 3 weeks after the primary procedure, with peritonitis and/or cholangitis or only progressive jaundice. For nine of the patients (90%), the procedure was completed entirely laparoscopically. The mean operative time was 326.6 min for the patients with choledochal cysts and 268 min for the patients with iatrogenic strictures. One patient with stricture after open cholecystectomy underwent conversion to an open repair because of severe anatomic distortion and fibrosis. Four patients drained bile postoperatively for 5 to 7 days. One patient with iatrogenic biliary stricture after open cholecystectomy required open revision of the anastomosis 18 months after laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy because of recurrent cholangitis. The remaining eight patients (80%) were doing well a mean follow-up period of 3.1 years (range, 3 months to 5 years). Total laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy is feasible for a select group of patients, but requires advanced laparoscopic skills, including intracorporeal suturing. It must be attempted only in centers well versed in advanced laparoscopic surgery.