34 research outputs found
A multicenter prospective study of patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal positioning using themonofilament polyester composite ventral patch: interim results of the PANACEA study
No full textFrederik Berrevoet,1 Carl Doerhoff,2 Filip Muysoms,3 Steven Hopson,4 Marco Gallinella Muzi,5 Simon Nienhuijs,6 Eric Kullman,7 Tim Tollens,8 Mark R Schwartz,9 Karl LeBlanc,10 Vic Velanovich,11 Lars Nannestad Jørgensen12 1Department of General and Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; 2General Surgery, Surgicare of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, USA; 3Department of Surgery, AZ Maria Middelares Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; 4Bon Secours Hernia Center, Mary Immaculate Hospital, Newport News, VA, USA; 5University Hospital Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy; 6Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; 7Medicinskt Centrum Linköping, Linköping, Sweden; 8Imelda Hospital-General Surgery Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium; 9Monmouth Medical Center, Long Branch, NJ, 10Our Lady of Lakes Regional Medical Center, Baton Rouge, LA, 11Tampa General Hospital, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA; 12Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Purpose: This study assessed the recurrence rate and other safety and efficacy parameters following ventral hernia repair with a polyester composite prosthesis (Parietex™ Composite Ventral Patch [PCO-VP]).Patients and methods: A single-arm, multicenter prospective study of 126 patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair with the PCO-VP was performed. Patient outcomes were assessed at discharge and at 10 days, 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperative.Results: All patients had hernioplasty for umbilical (n = 110, 87.3%) or epigastric hernia (n = 16, 12.7%). Mean hernia diameter was 1.8 ± 0.8 cm. Mean operative time was 36.2 ±15.6 minutes, with a mean mesh positioning time of 8.1 ± 3.4 minutes. Surgeons reported satisfaction with mesh ease of use in 95% of surgeries. The cumulative hernia recurrence rate at 1 year was 2.8% (3/106). Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores showed improvement from 2.1 ± 2.0 at preoperative baseline to 0.5 ± 0.7 at 1 month postoperative (P < 0.001), and this low pain level was maintained at 12 months postsurgery (P < 0.001). The mean global Carolina’s Comfort Scale® (CCS) score improved postoperatively from 3.8 ± 6.2 at 1 month to 1.6 ± 3.5 at 6 months (P < 0.001). One patient was unsatisfied with the procedure.Conclusion: This 1-year interim analysis using PCO-VP for primary umbilical and epigastric defects shows promising results in terms of mesh ease of use, postoperative pain, and patient satisfaction. Recurrence rate is low, but, as laparoscopic evaluation shows a need for patch repositioning in some cases, an accurate surgical technique remains of utmost importance. Keywords: intraperitoneal mesh, epigastric hernia, umbilical hernia, pai
Regarding “5-Millimeter Trocar Site Hernias after Laparoscopy Requiring Surgical Repair”
No full textUpdate Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Evidence on Parastomal Hernia Prevention—A EHS, ESCP and EAES Collaborative Project
No full textObjective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline.Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables.Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.14 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18–0.62], I2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25–1.09], I2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45–1.30], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence).Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach
EHS Rapid Guideline: Evidence-Informed European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention—With ESCP and EAES Participation
No full textBackground: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention.Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders.Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients’ preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility.Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia.Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity
Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias.
No full textA classification for primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias is needed to allow comparison of publications and future studies on these hernias. It is important to know whether the populations described in different studies are comparable.Comparative StudyConsensus Development ConferenceJournal ArticleReviewSCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe
Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies
No full textBACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal wall incision. Surgical technique is an important risk factor for the development of incisional hernia. The aim of these updated guidelines was to provide recommendations to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia. METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed on 22 January 2022. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network instrument was used to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses, RCTs, and cohort studies. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to appraise the certainty of the evidence. The guidelines group consisted of surgical specialists, a biomedical information specialist, certified guideline methodologist, and patient representative. RESULTS: Thirty-nine papers were included covering seven key questions, and weak recommendations were made for all of these. Laparoscopic surgery and non-midline incisions are suggested to be preferred when safe and feasible. In laparoscopic surgery, suturing the fascial defect of trocar sites of 10 mm and larger is advised, especially after single-incision laparoscopic surgery and at the umbilicus. For closure of an elective midline laparotomy, a continuous small-bites suturing technique with a slowly absorbable suture is suggested. Prophylactic mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomy can be considered to reduce the risk of incisional hernia; a permanent synthetic mesh in either the onlay or retromuscular position is advised. CONCLUSION: These updated guidelines may help surgeons in selecting the optimal approach and location of abdominal wall incisions
Prevention of Incisional Hernias by Prophylactic Mesh-augmented Reinforcement of Midline Laparotomies for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
No full textpeer reviewedBACKGROUND: The incidence of incisional hernias after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is high. Prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during laparotomy closure has been proposed in patients at high risk of incisional hernia. METHODS: A multicenter randomized trial was conducted on patients undergoing elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair through a midline laparotomy (Clinical.Trials.gov: NCT00757133). In the study group, retromuscular mesh-augmented reinforcement was performed with a large-pore polypropylene mesh (Ultrapro, width 7.5 cm). The primary endpoint was the incidence of incisional hernias at 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Between February 2009 and January 2013, 120 patients were recruited at 8 Belgian centers. Patients' characteristics at baseline were similar between groups. Operative and postoperative characteristics showed no difference in morbidity or mortality. The cumulative incidence of incisional hernias at 2-year follow-up after conventional closure was 28% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17%-41%) versus 0% (95% CI, 0%-6%) after mesh-augmented reinforcement (P < 0.0001; Fisher exact test). The estimated "freedom of incisional hernia" curves (Kaplan-Meier estimate) were significantly different across study arms (chi = 19.5, P < 0.0001; Mantel-Cox test). No adverse effect related to mesh-augmented reinforcement was observed, apart from an increased mean time to close the abdominal wall for mesh-augmented reinforcement compared with the control group: 46 minutes (SD, 18.6) versus 30 minutes (SD, 18.5), respectively (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney U test). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic retromuscular mesh-augmented reinforcement of a midline laparotomy in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm is safe and effectively prevents the development of incisional hernia during 2 years, with an additional mean operative time of 16 minutes
