Franz Mayer

Small bowel obstruction after TAPP repair caused by a self-anchoring barbed suture device for peritoneal closure: case report and review of the literature

IntroductionTransabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty (TAPP) is a common procedure for groin hernia repair in adults. The peritoneal closure after mesh placement can be performed in various ways. In any case, thorough closure is recommended to avoid mesh exposure to the viscera with the risk of adhesions and bowel incarceration into peritoneal defects. Postoperative intestinal obstructions can mainly occur due to adhesions or bowel herniation through peritoneal defects into the dissected preperitoneal space. Incarcerations can also occur as a consequence of trocar site herniation.Results and conclusionRecently barbed self-anchoring knotless suturing devices are frequently used for peritoneal closure. The correct handling of such sutures is crucial to avoid potential complications. Despite of accurate management, bowel adherence and injuries or volvulus can occur.MethodsWe present an unusual case of a postoperative small bowel obstruction owing to strained adhesions and ingrowth between a small bowel segment and a polyglyconate unidirectional self-anchoring barbed suture device. Medline and PudMed databases were searched using the below-mentioned keywords and the literature on efficacy and safety of barbed sutures for peritoneal closure is reviewed as well as the usage of such devices in other fields of surgery.

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.

Development of a standardized curriculum concept for continuing training in hernia surgery: German Hernia School

IntroductionThe increasingly more complex nature of hernia surgery means that training programs for young surgeons must now meet ever more stringent requirements. There is a growing demand for improved structuring and standardization of education and training in hernia surgery.Materials and methodsIn 2011, the concept of a Hernia School was developed in Germany and has been gradually implemented ever since. That concept comprises the following series of interrelated, tiered course elements: Hernie kompakt (Hernia compact), Hernie konkret (Hernia concrete), and Hernie complex (Hernia complex). All three course elements make provision for structured clinical training based on guest visits to approved hernia centers. The Hernia compact basic course imparts knowledge of anatomy working with fresh cadavers. Hernia surgery procedures can also be conducted using unfixed specimens. Knowledge of abdominal wall ultrasound diagnostics is also imparted and hernia surgery procedures simulated on pelvic trainers. In all three course elements, lectures are delivered by experts across the entire field of hernia surgery using evidence-based practices from the literature.ResultsTo date, eight Hernie kompakt (Hernia compact) courses have been conducted, in each case with up to 55 participants, and with a total of 390 participants. On evaluating the course, over 95% of participants expressed the view that the Hernia compact course content improved hernia surgery training. Following that positive feedback, the more advanced Hernie konkret (Hernia concrete) and Hernie complex (Hernia complex) course elements were introduced in 2016.ConclusionThe experiences gained to date since the introduction of a Hernia School—a standardized curriculum concept for continuing training in hernia surgery—has been evaluated by participants as an improvement on hitherto hernia surgery training.

Lichtenstein Versus Total Extraperitoneal Patch Plasty Versus Transabdominal Patch Plasty Technique for Primary Unilateral Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Registry-based, Propensity Score-matched Comparison of 57,906 Patients.

Objective: Outcome comparison of the Lichtenstein, total extraperitoneal patch plasty (TEP), and transabdominal patch plasty (TAPP) techniques for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair. Background: For comparison of these techniques the number of cases included in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials is limited. There is therefore an urgent need for more comparative data. Methods: In total, 57,906 patients with a primary unilateral inguinal hernia and 1-year follow up from the Herniamed Registry were selected between September 1, 2009 and February 1, 2015. Using propensity score matching, 12,564 matched pairs were formed for comparison of Lichtenstein versus TEP, 16,375 for Lichtenstein versus TAPP, and 14,426 for TEP versus TAPP. Results: Comparison of Lichtenstein versus TEP revealed disadvantages for the Lichtenstein operation with regard to the postoperative complications (3.4% vs 1.7%; P < 0.001), complication-related reoperations (1.1% vs 0.8%; P = 0.008), pain at rest (5.2% vs 4.3%; P = 0.003), and pain on exertion (10.6% vs 7.7%; P < 0.001). TEP had disadvantages in terms of the intraoperative complications (0.9% vs 1.2%; P = 0.035). Likewise, comparison of Lichtenstein versus TAPP showed disadvantages for the Lichtenstein operation with regard to the postoperative complications (3.8% vs 3.3%; P = 0.029), complication-related reoperations (1.2% vs 0.9%; P = 0.019), pain at rest (5% vs 4.5%; P = 0.029), and on exertion (10.2% vs 7.8%; P < 0.001). Conclusions: TEP and TAPP were found to have advantages over the Lichtenstein operation.

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

IntroductionAlthough 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.

Complex Cases in Abdominal Wall Repair and Prophilactic Mesh

Methods: Our method stands for three steps. First, the open abdominal wall is closed by an absorbable mesh and the wound care has been continued until the entire surface is covered with good granulation tissue. It usually takes about four to six weeks. Second, skin grafting is applied to the granulated surface. At this point, the planned ventral hernia is completed. Finally several months after grafting, the planned ventral hernia is repaired using modified component separation method.