An Jairam

Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of midline laparotomy and is associated with high morbidity, decreased quality of life, and high costs. We aimed to compare the large bites suture technique with the small bites technique for fascial closure of midline laparotomy incisions. METHODS We did this prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial at surgical and gynaecological departments in ten hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients aged 18 years or older who were scheduled to undergo elective abdominal surgery with midline laparotomy were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to receive small tissue bites of 5 mm every 5 mm or large bites of 1 cm every 1 cm. Randomisation was stratified by centre and between surgeons and residents with a minimisation procedure to ensure balanced allocation. Patients and study investigators were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was the occurrence of incisional hernia; we postulated a reduced incidence in the small bites group. We analysed patients by intention to treat. This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01132209 and with the Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR2052. FINDINGS Between Oct 20, 2009, and March 12, 2012, we randomly assigned 560 patients to the large bites group (n=284) or the small bites group (n=276). Follow-up ended on Aug 30, 2013; 545 (97%) patients completed follow-up and were included in the primary outcome analysis. Patients in the small bites group had fascial closures sutured with more stitches than those in the large bites group (mean number of stitches 45 [SD 12] vs 25 [10]; p<0·0001), a higher ratio of suture length to wound length (5·0 [1·5] vs 4·3 [1·4]; p<0·0001) and a longer closure time (14 [6] vs 10 [4] min; p<0·0001). At 1 year follow-up, 57 (21%) of 277 patients in the large bites group and 35 (13%) of 268 patients in the small bites group had incisional hernia (p=0·0220, covariate adjusted odds ratio 0·52, 95% CI 0·31-0·87; p=0·0131). Rates of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups. INTERPRETATION Our findings show that the small bites suture technique is more effective than the traditional large bites technique for prevention of incisional hernia in midline incisions and is not associated with a higher rate of adverse events. The small bites technique should become the standard closure technique for midline incisions. FUNDING Erasmus University Medical Center and Ethicon.

Short-term results of a randomized controlled trial comparing primary suture with primary glued mesh augmentation to prevent incisional hernia

BACKGROUND Incisional hernia is one of the most frequent postoperative complications after abdominal surgery. Patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm and patients with a body mass index of 27 or higher have an increased risk to develop incisional hernia. Primary mesh augmentation is a method in which the abdominal wall is strengthened to reduce incisional hernia incidence. This study focused on the short-term results of the PRImary Mesh Closure of Abdominal Midline Wounds trial, a multicenter double blind randomized controlled trial. METHODS Between 2009 and 2012 patients were included if they were operated via midline laparotomy, and had an abdominal aortic aneurysm or a body mass index of 27 or higher. Patients were randomly assigned to either receive primary suture, onlay mesh augmentation (OMA), or sublay mesh augmentation. RESULTS Outcomes represent results after 1-month follow-up. A total of 480 patients were randomized. During analysis, significantly (P = 0.002) more seromas were detected after OMA (n = 34, 18.1%) compared with primary suture (n = 5, 4.7%) and sublay mesh augmentation (n = 13, 7%). No differences were discovered in any of the other outcomes such as surgical site infection, hematoma, reintervention, or readmission. Multivariable analysis revealed an increase in seroma formation after OMA with an odds ratio of 4.3 (P = 0.004) compared with primary suture and an odds ratio of 2.9 (P = 0.003) compared with sublay mesh augmentation. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of these short-term results, primary mesh augmentation can be considered a safe procedure with only an increase in seroma formation after OMA, but without an increased risk of surgical site infection.

Clinical outcome and morphologic analysis after endovascular aneurysm repair using the Excluder endograft

OBJECTIVE Long-term follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is very scarce, and doubt remains regarding the durability of these procedures. We designed a retrospective cohort study to assess long-term clinical outcome and morphologic changes in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) treated by EVAR using the Excluder endoprosthesis (W. L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz). METHODS From 2000 to 2007, 179 patients underwent EVAR in a tertiary institution. Clinical data were retrieved from a prospective database. All patients treated with the Excluder endoprosthesis were included. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans were retrospectively analyzed preoperatively, at 30 days, and at the last follow-up using dedicated tridimensional reconstruction software. For patients with complications, all remaining CTAs were also analyzed. The primary end point was clinical success. Secondary end points were freedom from reintervention, sac growth, types I and III endoleak, migration, conversion to open repair, and AAA-related death or rupture. Neck dilatation, renal function, and overall survival were also analyzed. RESULTS Included were 144 patients (88.2% men; mean age, 71.6 years). Aneurysms were ruptured in 4.9%. American Society of Anesthesiologists classification was III/IV in 61.8%. No patients were lost during a median follow-up of 5.0 years (interquartile range, 3.1-6.4; maximum, 11.2 years). Two patients died of medical complications ≤ 30 days after EVAR. The estimated primary clinical success rates at 5 and 10 years were 63.5% and 41.1%, and secondary clinical success rates were 78.3% and 58.3%, respectively. Sac growth was observed in 37 of 142 patients (26.1%). Cox regression showed type I endoleak during follow-up (hazard ratio, 3.74; P = .008), original design model (hazard ratio, 3.85; P = .001), and preoperative neck diameter (1.27 per mm increase, P = .006) were determinants of sac growth. Secondary interventions were required in 32 patients (22.5%). The estimated 10-year rate of AAA-related death or rupture was 2.1%. Overall life expectancy after AAA repair was 6.8 years. CONCLUSIONS EVAR using the Excluder endoprosthesis provides a safe and lasting treatment for AAA, despite the need for maintained surveillance and secondary interventions. At up to 11 years, the risk of AAA-related death or postimplantation rupture is remarkably low. The incidences of postimplantation sac growth and secondary intervention were greatly reduced after the introduction of the low-permeability design in 2004.

Watchful waiting in incisional hernia: Is it safe?

BACKGROUND Incisional hernia (IH) is among the most common postoperative complications after abdominal surgery. Operative treatment (OT) using mesh is the treatment of choice. A strategy of watchful waiting (WW) might be a considered in some patients. This retrospective study compares the outcomes of WW and OT. METHODS All patients presenting with IH in an academic surgery department between January 2004 and December 2009 were analyzed according to whether they were treated by WW or OT. Crossovers between both groups were also analyzed. Patient characteristics, information about the initial abdominal operative procedure, symptoms at presentation, and characteristics of the hernia were collected retrospectively. In case of OT, postoperative complications were analyzed. RESULT In total, 255 patients were included; 151 (59%) in the OT group and 104 (41%) in WW group. The median follow-up was 68 months (interquartile range [IQR], 52-93). The reasons for WW were the absence of symptoms in 34 patients (33%), comorbidities in 24 (23%), and obesity in 23 (22%). During follow-up, 34 patients (33%) crossed over from WW to OT. Eight of the crossovers (24%) were emergency repairs owing to incarceration at a median of 1 month (IQR, 1-5) after the start of WW. The incidence of unexpected intraoperative intestinal perforation was greater in the crossover group (13%) compared with the OT group (2%; P = .002). Postoperative fistulas were seen in 7% of patients who crossed over from WW to OT versus 0% in primary OT (P = .002). Postoperatively, 3 patients died, 2 of whom were treated operatively after belonging initially to the WW group. CONCLUSION WW for IH leads to high crossover rates with significantly greater incidence of intraoperative perforations, fistulas, and mortality, than in the OT group, particularly in patients who require emergency repair of IH owing to incarceration.

Prevention of Incisional Hernias with Biological Mesh: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background Prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during closure of abdominal wall incisions has been proposed in patients with increased risk for development of incisional hernias (IHs). As part of the BioMesh consensus project, a systematic literature review has been performed to detect those studies where MAR was performed with a non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic). Methods A computerized search was performed within 12 databases (Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, Pubmed publisher, Lilacs, Scielo, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google Scholar) with appropriate search terms. Qualitative evaluation was performed using the MINORS score for cohort studies and the Jadad score for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Results For midline laparotomy incisions and stoma reversal wounds, two RCTs, two case–control studies, and two case series were identified. The studies were very heterogeneous in terms of mesh configuration (cross linked versus non-cross linked), mesh position (intraperitoneal versus retro-muscular versus onlay), surgical indication (gastric bypass versus aortic aneurysm), outcome results (effective versus non-effective). After qualitative assessment, we have to conclude that the level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of biological meshes for prevention of IHs is very low. No comparative studies were found comparing biological mesh with synthetic non-absorbable meshes for the prevention of IHs. Conclusion There is no evidence supporting the use of non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic) for prevention of IHs when closing a laparotomy in high-risk patients or in stoma reversal wounds. There is no evidence that a non-permanent absorbable mesh should be preferred to synthetic non-absorbable mesh, both in clean or clean-contaminated surgery.

Corrigendum to Patient reported outcome measurements in the diagnosis of incisional hernia: PROMIS questionnaire, a pilot study [Journal of Surgical Research 203(2) (2016) 378–382]

The authors regret that the article title was incorrectly published as “Patient reported outcome measurements in the diagnosis of incisional hernia: PROMIS questionnaire, a pilot study”. The correct article title for the manuscript is __“Patient reported outcome measurements in the diagnosis of incisional hernia: PROMID questionnaire, a pilot study”.__ The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Wound Closure and Postoperative Hernia Prevention Strategies

Closure of the laparotomy wound is the first and most important time point for prevention of postoperative hernia. Abdominal wound dehiscence and incisional hernia are major complications, associated with high morbidity and even mortality. Various risk models have been developed for both conditions, consisting of both patient and surgery-related risk factors. Surgical risk factors that can be influenced by surgeons include type of incision, type of suture material, and type of suture technique. In order to prevent incisional hernia in the midline incision, it is advocated to suture the abdominal wall continuously in a mass closure technique. Slowly absorbable sutures should be used with a suture length to wound length ratio of at least 4:1 using small stitches (5–8 mm) with small inter suture distances (5 mm). Currently, there is not enough evidence to support the use of retention sutures or abdominal binders to prevent incisional hernia. In high-risk patients, e.g., with obesity or abdominal aortic aneurysms, it should be considered to use prophylactic mesh (in onlay or sublay position). Prophylactic mesh in onlay position has been associated with increased incidence of seroma formation.