Pilot study on objective measurement of abdominal wall strength in patients with ventral incisional hernia.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after ventral incisional hernia (VIH) repair are measured by recurrence rate and subjective measures. No objective metrics evaluate functional outcomes after abdominal wall reconstruction. This study aimed to develop testing of abdominal wall strength (AWS) that could be validated as a useful metric. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected during 9 months from 35 patients. A total of 10 patients were evaluated before and after VIH repair, for a total of 45 encounters. The patients were tested simultaneously or in succession by two of three examiners. Data were collected for three tests: double leg lowering (DLL), trunk raising (TR), and supine reaching (SR). Raw data were compared and tested for validity, and continuous data were transformed to categorical data. Agreement was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for DLL and using kappa for the ordinal measures. RESULTS: Simultaneous testing yielded the following interobserver reliability: DLL (0.96 and 0.87), TR (1.00 and 0.95), and SR (0.76). Reproducibility was assessed by consecutive tests, with correlation as follows: DLL (0.81), TR (0.81), and RCH (0.21). Due to poor interobserver reliability for the SR test compared with the DLL and TR tests, the SR test was excluded from calculation of an overall score. Based on raw data distribution from the DLL and TR tests, the DLL data were categorized into 10º increments, allowing construction of a 10-point score. The median AWS score was 5 (interquartile range [IQR], 4-7), and there was agreement within 1 point for 42 of the 45 encounters (93%). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study demonstrate that the 10-point AWS score may measure AWS in an accurate and reproducible fashion, with potential for objective description of abdominal wall function of VIH patients. This score may help to identify patients suited for abdominal wall reconstruction while measuring progress after VIH repair. Further longitudinal outcomes studies are needed.

Hiatal mesh is associated with major resection at revisional operation.

BACKGROUND: Mesh-assisted hiatal closure during foregut surgery is increasing. Our aim was to evaluate the complications that follow revisional foregut surgery. Specifically, we compared surgical indications and perioperative outcomes between patients with and without prior hiatal mesh (PHM). METHODS: We conducted an institutional review board (IRB)-approved retrospective cohort study from a single tertiary-care referral center. Over 37 months, 91 patients underwent revisional foregut surgery. We excluded 13 cases including operations performed primarily for obesity or achalasia. Of the remaining 78 patients, 10 had PHM and 68 were nonmesh patients (NM). RESULTS: The groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and rates and types of anatomic failure. Compared with NM patients, PHM patients had increased estimated blood loss (410 vs. 127 ml, p < 0.01) and operative time (4.07 vs. 2.89 h, p < 0.01). The groups had no difference in perioperative blood transfusion or length of stay. Complete fundoplication was more commonly created in NM patients (2/10 vs. 42/68, p = 0.03). Three of the 10 PHM patients and 3 of the 68 NM patients required major resection. Therefore, PHM patients had 6.8-fold increased risk of major resection compared with NM patients [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.585, 29.17; p = 0.05]. The NM patients with multiple prior hiatal operations had 4.6-fold increased risk of major resection compared with those with one prior operation (95% CI = 2.919, 7.384; p = 0.03). In PHM patients, however, the number of prior hiatal operations was not associated with major resection. CONCLUSIONS: PHM is associated with increased risk of major resection at revision. The pattern of failure was not different in patients with hiatal mesh, suggesting that hiatal mesh does not eliminate the potential for revision. When performing hiatal herniorrhaphy, the increased risk of recurrence without mesh must be weighed against the potential risk for subsequent major resection when using mesh.

A case series of laparoscopic components separation and rectus medialization with laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair has been shown to offer improved patient recovery, when compared to open repair. It has also been shown to offer a lower complication rate. However, in patients with high body-mass index and large defects, the intraperitoneal on-lay technique of laparoscopic repair is criticized for an increased incidence of failure. In 1990, a study introduced the technique of open-component separation, hence enabling the medialization of the rectus muscle and decreasing the incidence of recurrence associated with primary repair. Open-component separation is associated with increased wound problems due to extensive dissection. Different laparoscopic and endoscopic modifications to the open-component-separation technique have been tried to minimize wound problems. In this article, we present our case series of 4 patients involving the laparoscopic component-separation technique of rectus medialization and, laparoscopic ventral hernia combined. This is one of the first series ever reported to involve both modalities of hernia repair in using an exclusive laparoscopic technique.