Hasan H. Eker

Laparoscopic vs open incisional hernia repair a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Incisional hernia is the most frequent surgical complication after laparotomy. Up to 30% of all patients undergoing laparotomy develop an incisional hernia. OBJECTIVE To compare laparoscopic vs open ventral incisional hernia repair with regard to postoperative pain and nausea, operative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, hospital admission, and recurrence rate. DESIGN Multicenter randomized controlled trial between May 1999 and December 2006 with a mean follow-up period of 35 months. SETTING All patients were operated on in a clinical setting at 1 of the 2 participating university medical centers or at the other 8 teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred six patients from 10 hospitals were randomized equally to laparoscopic or open mesh repair. Patients with an incisional hernia larger than 3 cm and smaller than 15 cm, either primary or recurrent, were included. Patients were excluded if they had an open abdomen treatment in their medical histories. INTERVENTION Laparoscopic or open ventral incisional hernia repair. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome of the trial was postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes were use of analgesics, perioperative and postoperative complications, operative time, postoperative nausea, length of hospital stay, recurrence, morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS Median blood loss during the operation was significantly less (10 mL vs 50 mL; P = .05) as well as the number of patients receiving a wound drain (3% vs. 45%; P < .001) in the laparoscopic group. Operative time for the laparoscopic group was longer (100 minutes vs. 76 minutes; P = .001). Perioperative complications were significantly higher after laparoscopy (9% vs. 2%). Visual analog scale scores for pain and nausea, completed before surgery and 3 days and 1 and 4 weeks postoperatively, showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. At a mean follow-up period of 35 months, a recurrence rate of 14% was reported in the open group and 18%, in the laparoscopic group (P = .30). The size of the defect was found to be an independent predictor for recurrence (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE During the operation, there was less blood loss and less need for a wound drain in the laparoscopic group. However, operative time was longer during laparoscopy. Perioperative complications were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. Visual analog scores for pain and nausea did not differ between groups. The incidence of a recurrence was similar in both groups. The size of the defect was found to be an independent factor for recurrence of an incisional hernia.

Prevention of incisional hernia with prophylactic onlay and sublay mesh reinforcement versus primary suture only in midline laparotomies (PRIMA): 2-year follow-up of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Incisional hernia is a frequent long-term complication after abdominal surgery, with a prevalence greater than 30% in high-risk groups. The aim of the PRIMA trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of mesh reinforcement in high-risk patients, to prevent incisional hernia. METHODS We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial at 11 hospitals in Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands. We included patients aged 18 years or older who were undergoing elective midline laparotomy and had either an abdominal aortic aneurysm or a body-mass index (BMI) of 27 kg/m2 or higher. We randomly assigned participants using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to one of three treatment groups: primary suture; onlay mesh reinforcement; or sublay mesh reinforcement. The primary endpoint was incidence of incisional hernia during 2 years of follow-up, analysed by intention to treat. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were estimated by logistic regression. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761475. FINDINGS Between March, 2009, and December, 2012, 498 patients were enrolled to the study, of whom 18 were excluded before randomisation. Therefore, we included 480 patients in the primary analysis: 107 were assigned primary suture only, 188 were allocated onlay mesh reinforcement, and 185 were assigned sublay mesh reinforcement. 92 patients were identified with an incisional hernia, 33 (30%) who were allocated primary suture only, 25 (13%) who were assigned onlay mesh reinforcement, and 34 (18%) who were assigned sublay mesh reinforcement (onlay mesh reinforcement vs primary suture, OR 0·37, 95% CI 0·20-0·69; p=0·0016; sublay mesh reinforcement vs primary suture, 0·55, 0·30-1·00; p=0·05). Seromas were more frequent in patients allocated onlay mesh reinforcement (34 of 188) than in those assigned primary suture (five of 107; p=0·002) or sublay mesh reinforcement (13 of 185; p=0·002). The incidence of wound infection did not differ between treatment groups (14 of 107 primary suture; 25 of 188 onlay mesh reinforcement; and 19 of 185 sublay mesh reinforcement). INTERPRETATION A significant reduction in incidence of incisional hernia was achieved with onlay mesh reinforcement compared with sublay mesh reinforcement and primary suture only. Onlay mesh reinforcement has the potential to become the standard treatment for high-risk patients undergoing midline laparotomy. FUNDING Baxter; B Braun Surgical SA.

Meta-analysis of primary mesh augmentation as prophylactic measure to prevent incisional hernia.

Background: Incisional hernia (IH) remains one of the most frequent postoperative complications after abdominal surgery. As a consequence, primary mesh augmentation (PMA), a technique to strengthen the abdominal wall, has been gaining popularity. This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the prophylactic effect of PMA on the incidence of IH compared to primary suture (PS). Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PMA and PS for closing the abdominal wall after surgery were included. Results: Out of 576 papers, 5 RCTs were selected comprising 346 patients. IH occurred significantly less in the PMA group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12-0.52, I20%; p < 0.001). No difference could be observed with regard to wound infection (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.39-1.91, I2 0%; p = 0.71) or seroma (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.64-2.33, I2 0%; p = 0.55). A trend was observed for chronic pain in favor of the PS group (RR 5.95, 95% CI 0.74-48.03, I20%; p = 0.09). Conclusion: The use of PMA for abdominal wall closure is associated with significantly lower incidence of IH compared to PS.

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.

Incisional hernia after liver transplantation: risk factors and health-related quality of life

The aim of this cross‐sectional study was to analyze the incidence of incisional hernia after liver transplantation (LT), to determine potential risk factors for their development, and to assess their impact on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients who underwent LT through a J‐shaped incision with a minimum follow‐up of three months were included. Follow‐up was conducted at the outpatient clinic. Short Form 36 (SF‐36) and body image questionnaire (BIQ) were used for the assessment of HRQoL. A total of 140 patients was evaluated. The mean follow‐up period was 33 (SD 20) months. Sixty patients (43%) were diagnosed with an incisional hernia. Multivariate analysis revealed surgical site infection (OR 5.27, p = 0.001), advanced age (OR 1.05, p = 0.003), and prolonged ICU stay (OR 1.54, p = 0.022) to be independent risk factors for development of incisional hernia after LT. Patients with an incisional hernia experienced significantly diminished HRQoL with respect to physical, social, and mental aspects. In conclusion, patients who undergo LT exhibit a high incidence of incisional hernia, which has a considerable impact on HRQoL. Development of incisional hernia was shown to be related to surgical site infection, advanced age, and prolonged ICU stay.

Repeat hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal metastases (Br J Surg 2013; 100: 808–818)

In this paper, Wicherts and co-workers report on the oncological results of the largest series of patients having repeat hepatic resections for colorectal liver metastases thus far published. Even though large randomized prospective studies are lacking, the effectiveness and safety of repeat hepatectomy seem to be evident, leading to prolonged overall survival rates. The morbidity and mortality associated with second, third, and even fourth hepatectomies appear comparable with the results of primary hepatectomy1. The oncological outcome of this study corresponds with that of earlier publications on this issue1,2. The focus of this topic should no longer be the feasibility or justification of repeat hepatectomy. The main questions now should be how safety outcomes as morbidity and mortality can be decreased, and how oncological outcomes could be further optimized. Cannon and colleagues3 recently published a retrospective comparison of open and laparoscopic hepatic resection of hepatic metastases. Compared with open resection, laparoscopic resection appeared to be associated with significantly fewer complications and shorter hospital stay, with comparable survival rates. Although hepatectomy is considered the only curative option for liver metastases, the development of new treatment strategies such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with portal embolization, cryotherapy, radiofrequency ablation or irreversible electroporation may lead to wider and more complex resections. These less invasive treatment options could possibly also result in decreased morbidity and mortality rates, and improve oncological outcome.

Laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair in the presence of extensive paraumbilical collateral veins: A case report

A patient with an umbilical hernia presenting with collateral veins in the abdominal wall and umbilicus is a case that every hernia surgeon has to deal with occasionally. Several underlying diseases have been described to provoke collateral veins in the abdominal wall. However, the treatment strategy should be uniform. We herein report a case of a successful laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair in a patient with collateral veins in the abdominal wall and umbilicus. A 63-year-old man was referred to the surgical outpatient clinic with a large symptomatic umbilical hernia and collateral veins in the abdominal wall, secondary to an occlusion of both common iliac veins. Because of collateral veins in the umbilicus and the size of the hernial defect, he was offered laparoscopic hernia repair without compromising these veins. Because of the extensive abdominal wall collaterals, duplex sonography vein mapping was performed preoperatively to mark a safe collateral-free area for trocar introduction. The defect was repaired by mesh prosthesis.