Risks of subsequent abdominal operations after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) with intraperitoneal mesh placement is well established; however, the fate of patients requiring future abdominal operations is not well understood. This study identifies the characteristics of LVHR patients undergoing reoperation and the sequelae of reoperation. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database at a hernia referral center identified patients who underwent LVHR between 2005 and 2014 and then underwent a subsequent abdominal operation. The outcomes of those reoperations were collected. Data are presented as a mean with ranges. RESULTS: A total of 733 patients underwent LVHR. The average age was 56.5 years, BMI 33.9 kg/m2, hernia size 115 cm2 (range 1-660 cm2), and mesh size 411 cm2 (range 17.7-1360 cm2). After a mean follow-up of 19.4 months, the overall hernia recurrence rate was 8.4 %. Subsequent abdominal operations were performed in 17 % (125 patients) at a mean 2.2 years. The most common indication for reoperation was recurrent hernia (33 patients, 26.4 %), followed by bowel obstruction (18 patients, 14.4 %), hepatopancreaticobiliary (17 patients, 13.6 %) and infected mesh removal (15 patients, 12 %), gynecologic (10 patients, 8 %), colorectal (8 patients, 6.4 %), bariatric (4 patients, 3 %), trauma (1 patient, 0.8 %), and other (19 patients, 15 %). The overall incidence of enterotomy or unplanned bowel resection (EBR) at reoperation was 4 %. This occurred exclusively in those reoperated for complete bowel obstruction, and the reason for EBR was mesh-bowel adhesions. No other indication for reoperation resulted in EBR. The incidence of secondary mesh infection after subsequent operation was 2.4 %. CONCLUSION: In a large consecutive series of LVHR, the rate of abdominal reoperation was 17 %. Generally, these reoperations can be performed safely. A reoperation for bowel obstruction, however, may carry an increased risk of EBR as a direct result of mesh-bowel adhesions. Secondary mesh infection after reoperation, although rare, may also occur. Surgeons should discuss with their patients the potential long-term implications of having an intraperitoneal mesh and how it may impact future abdominal surgery.

Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery With Concomitant Hiatal Hernia Repair Using an Absorbable Tissue Matrix.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernias are a common finding in patients who undergo bariatric surgery with an incidence of about 20% of all bariatric patients. Controversy exists on the utility of a biosynthetic tissue matrix (BTM) usage in combination with crural repair. This study was designed to explore the safety and benefits of the use of a BTM during concomitant hiatal hernia repair with bariatric surgical procedures. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of bariatric surgical patients who underwent a concomitant hiatal hernia repair at a single practice at a tertiary academic medical center from January 2014 to February 2019. RESULTS: A total of 420 patients were reviewed. Hiatal BTM reinforcement, recurrence, and postoperative proton pump inhibitor use were reported by type of operation. Recurrence was higher in gastric bypass patients who underwent hiatal hernia repair with suture cruroplasty alone vs. those who also underwent hiatal BTM reinforcement (7.1% vs. 3.7%, P = .52) and significantly higher in gastric sleeve patients who underwent hiatal hernia repair with suture cruroplasty alone vs. those who also underwent hiatal BTM reinforcement (7.1% vs. .5%, P = .01). No patient required reoperation for hiatal hernia recurrence. DISCUSSION: Performing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or vertical sleeve gastrectomy with concomitant hiatal hernia repair is safe and durable. Employing crural reinforcement with BTM may be of benefit in reducing recurrence rates of hiatal hernia, particularly in sleeve gastrectomy patients.

Impact of methocarbamol on opioid use after ventral incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Alternatives to opioid analgesia are needed to reduce the risk of abuse, misuse, and diversion. Musculoskeletal pain is a significant contributor to postoperative pain after ventral hernia repair (VHR). We report the impact of methocarbamol on opioid prescribing after VHR. METHODS: Review of all robotic and open VHR, Jan 2020-July 2022. Data was collected in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) with additional chart review to assess for opioid refills. A 2:1 propensity score match was performed comparing opioid prescribing in patients prescribed vs not prescribed methocarbamol. RESULTS: 101 patients received methocarbamol compared with 202 without. Similar number of patients received an opioid prescription (87.1 vs 86.6%; p = 0.904). Study patients received significantly lower MME prescription at discharge (60 v 75; p = 0.021) with no difference in refills (12.5 vs 16.6%; p = 0.386). CONCLUSION: Addition of methocarbamol to a multimodal analgesic regimen after VHR facilitates reduction in prescribed opioid with no increase in refills.

Impact of methocarbamol on opioid use after primary ventral and inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia is now a mainstay of perioperative care. Our aim is to assess the impact of adding methocarbamol on opioid use for patients undergoing primary ventral (umbilical and epigastric) hernia repair (PVHR) and inguinal hernia repair (IHR). METHODS: Retrospective review of patients undergoing PVHR and IHR who received methocarbamol, propensity score matched in a 2:1 fashion to patients not receiving methocarbamol. RESULTS: Fifty-two PVHR patients receiving methocarbamol were matched to 104 control patients. Study patients were prescribed fewer opioids (55.8 vs 90.4%; p < 0.001) and received lower MME (20 vs 50; p < 0.001), with no difference in refills or rescue opioids. For IHR, study patients received fewer prescriptions (67.3 vs 87.5%; p < 0.001) and received lower MME (25 vs 40; p < 0.001), with no difference in rescue opioid (5.9 vs 0%; p = 0.374). CONCLUSIONS: Methocarbamol significantly reduced opioid prescribing in patients undergoing PVHR and IHR without increasing the risk of refill or rescue opioid.

Use of Bioabsorbable Tissue Reinforcement Reduces Incidence of Internal Hernia in Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Patients.

Internal hernias are one of the most devastating late, postsurgical complications associated with laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). The objective of this study was to determine whether placement of a bioabsorbable tissue matrix in soft tissue defects after gastric bypass resulted in a lower incidence of internal hernia development. Prospective database was used to identify all patients who underwent LRYGB between January 2002 and January 2016. These patients were then retrospectively reviewed to determine the development of internal hernia. Before 2009, the retro-Roux defect was left open during the primary operation and the defect at the jejunojejunostomy was closed with sutures or staples. Beginning in 2009, all soft tissue internal defects were reinforced with an 8 cm × 8-cm piece of bioabsorbable matrix. The incidence of subsequent internal hernia development was compared between these two groups: no bioabsorbable matrix versus use of a bioabsorbable matrix. A total of 2771 patients underwent LRYGB during our study period. From these, 1215 procedures were performed without tissue reinforcement and 1556 were performed using a bioabsorbable matrix. During the study period, 274 patients developed an internal hernia. Patients who did not have tissue reinforcement at closure had a significantly higher internal hernia rate [225/1215 (18.5%) vs 49/1556 (3.1%), P < 0.005]. This study demonstrates a statistically significant reduction in internal hernia formation after LRYGB with the addition of a bioabsorbable tissue matrix. Although prospective studies are needed, early evidence suggests that reinforcement with a bioabsorbable tissue scaffold is an effective method for minimizing internal hernias after LRYGB.

The economic impact of rural family physicians practicing obstetrics.

BACKGROUND: The economic impact of a family physician practicing family medicine in rural Alabama is $1,000,000 a year in economic benefit to the community. The economic benefit of those rural family physicians practicing obstetrics has not been studied. This study was designed to determine whether there was any added economic benefit of rural family physicians practicing obstetrics in rural, underserved Alabama. The Alabama Family Practice Rural Health Board has funded the University of Alabama Family Medicine Obstetrics Fellowship since its beginning in 1986. METHODS: Family medicine obstetrics fellowship graduates who practice obstetrics in rural, underserved areas were sent questionnaires and asked to participate in the study. The questions included the most common types and average annual numbers of obstetrics/gynecological procedures they performed. RESULTS: Ten physicians, or 77% of the graduates asked to participate in the study, returned the questionnaire. Fourteen common obstetrics/gynecological procedures performed by the graduates were identified. A mean of 115 deliveries were performed. The full-time equivalent reduction in family medicine time to practice obstetrics was 20%. CONCLUSIONS: A family physician practicing obstetrics in a rural area adds an additional $488,560 in economic benefit to the community in addition to the $1,000,000 from practicing family medicine, producing a total annual benefit of $1,488,560. The investment of $616,385 from the Alabama Family Practice Rural Health Board resulted in a $399 benefit to the community for every dollar invested. The cumulative effect of fellowship graduates practicing both family medicine and obstetrics in rural, underserved areas over the 26 years studied was $246,047,120.