The incidence and impact of enterotomy during laparoscopic and robotic ventral hernia repair: a nationwide readmissions analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to define the national incidence of enterotomy (ENT) during minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (MIS-VHR) and evaluate impact on short-term outcomes. METHODS: The 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried using ICD-10 codes for MIS-VHR and enterotomy. All patients had 3-months follow-up. Patients were stratified by elective status; patients without ENT (No-ENT) were compared against ENT patients. RESULTS: In total, 30,025 patients underwent LVHR and ENT occurred in 388 (1.3%) patients; 19,188 (63.9%) cases were elective including 244 elective-ENT patients. Incidence was similar between elective versus non-elective cohorts (1.27% vs 1.33%; p = 0.674). Compared to laparoscopy, ENT was more common during robotic procedures (1.2% vs 1.7%; p = 0.004). Comparison of elective-No-ENT vs elective-ENT showed that elective-ENT patients had a longer median LOS (2 vs 5 days; p < 0.001), higher mean hospital cost ($51,656 vs $76,466; p < 0.001), increased rates of mortality (0.3% vs 2.9%; p < 0.001), and higher 3-month readmission (10.1% vs 13.9%; p = 0.048). Non-elective cohort comparison demonstrated non-elective-ENT patients had a longer median LOS (4 vs 7 days; p < 0.001), higher mean hospital cost ($58,379 vs $87,850; p < 0.001), increased rates of mortality (0.7% vs 2.1%;p < 0.001), and higher 3-month readmission (13.6% vs 22.2%; p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 95% CI), higher odds of enterotomy were associated with robotic-assisted procedures (1.386, 1.095-1.754; p = 0.007) and older age (1.014, 1.004-1.024; p = 0.006). Lower odds of ENT were associated with BMI > 25 kg/m2 (0.784, 0.624-0.984; p = 0.036) and metropolitan teaching vs metropolitan non-teaching (0.784, 0.622-0.987; p = 0.044). ENT patients (n = 388) were more likely to be readmitted with post-operative infection (1.9% vs 4.1%; p = 0.002) or bowel obstruction (1.0% vs 5.2%;p < 0.001) and more likely to undergo reoperation for intestinal adhesions (0.3% vs 1.0%; p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Inadvertent ENT occurred in 1.3% of MIS-VHRs, had similar rates between elective and urgent cases, but was more common for robotic procedures. ENT patients had a longer LOS, and increased cost and infection, readmission, re-operation and mortality rates.

Single-stage abdominal wall reconstruction in contaminated and dirty wounds is safe: a single center experience.

BACKGROUND: The proper approach to repair of complex abdominal wall hernia in contaminated and dirty surgical fields is unknown. Identification of a surgical approach limiting the number of operative procedures, post-operative complications, and financial burden is needed. We hypothesized that single-stage abdominal wall reconstruction using poly-4-hydroxybutyrate resorbable mesh would result in low incidence of post-operative surgical site occurrence and a low incidence of hernia recurrence in Centers for Disease Control class III and IV wounds. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a single institution, retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients, age greater than 18 years old, that underwent abdominal wall reconstruction complicated by presence of Centers for Disease Control class III and IV wounds between January 2014 and March 2019. Primary outcomes assessed were surgical site occurrence, hernia recurrence, and mesh-related adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients that underwent single-stage abdominal wall reconstruction utilizing poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh with contaminated (n = 12) and dirty/infected wounds (n = 22) were identified. Patients mean age was 64 years, and body mass index was 31 kg/m2. Mean follow-up was 37 months, range of 21-60. Concurrent procedures included fistula takedown (n = 9), infected mesh removal (n = 6), and parastomal hernia repair (n = 6). Mean defect size was 150.7 cm2. Surgical site occurrence rate was 12%, with 1 superficial and 2 deep surgical site infections. Midline hernia recurrence rate was 0, there were two parastomal hernia recurrences, for an overall hernia recurrence rate of 6%. No mesh-related adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that over a 3-year follow-up period single-stage complex abdominal wall reconstruction with poly-4-hydroxybutyrate is safe and durable. Single-stage complex abdominal wall reconstruction with poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh in the setting of Centers for Disease Control class III and IV wounds is a realistic option with acceptable outcomes.

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION: Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations. METHODS: A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used. RESULTS: The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes. CONCLUSION: The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.