Controversies in laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia

<b>Background: </b> Incisional hernias can be a significant problem after open abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LIHR) is conceptually appealing: a large, abdominal wall re-incision with potential wound-related ill effects is avoided and an intra-peritoneal onlay mesh is expected to provide security that is equivalent to open, retro-muscular mesh repair. As such, LIHR has gained substantial popularity despite sparse, randomised clinical data to compare with conventional, open repair. <b> Aim: </b> To enumerate and discuss important, controversial issues in patient-selection, technique and early post-operative care for LIHR. <b> Materials and Methods: </b> Pragmatic summary of comprehensive review of English language literature, discussion with experts and personal experience. <b> Outcomes:</b> Six important areas of some dispute were identified: 1. Size of abdominal-wall defect that is suitable for LIHR: Generally, defect-diameter &gt; 10 cm is better served by open retromuscular repair with tension-free re-approximation of the edges of the defect. 2. Extent of adhesiolysis: Complete division of adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall may identify sub-clinical "Swiss-cheese" defects but incurs some risk of additional complications. 3. Intra-operative recognition of enterotomy: Possible options are either laparoscopic suture of bowel injury and simultaneous completion of LIHR, or staged LIHR or conversion to open suture-repair. 4. Choice of mesh: "Composite" meshes are regarded as the current standard of care but there is paucity of data regarding potential dangers of intra-peritoneal polypropylene mesh. 5. Technique of mesh-fixation: Trans-parietal sutures are more secure than tacks, with limited data to correlate with post-operative pain. 6. Alarm over post-operative pain: Unlike other advanced laparoscopic operations, the specificity of pain as a marker of intra-abdominal sepsis after LIHR remains unclear. <b> Conclusion</b> : Recognition of and attention to controversial issues will promote increased success of LIHR

Review Article - Controversies in laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia

Background: Incisional hernias can be a significant problem after open abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LIHR) is conceptually appealing: a large, abdominal wall re-incision with potential wound-related ill effects is avoided and an intra-peritoneal onlay mesh is expected to provide security that is equivalent to open, retro-muscular mesh repair. As such, LIHR has gained substantial popularity despite sparse, randomised clinical data to compare with conventional, open repair. Aim: To enumerate and discuss important, controversial issues in patient-selection, technique and early post-operative care for LIHR. Materials and Methods: Pragmatic summary of comprehensive review of English language literature, discussion with experts and personal experience. Outcomes: Six important areas of some dispute were identified: 1. Size of abdominal-wall defect that is suitable for LIHR: Generally, defect-diameter > 10 cm is better served by open retromuscular repair with tension-free re-approximation of the edges of the defect. 2. Extent of adhesiolysis: Complete division of adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall may identify sub-clinical "Swiss-cheese" defects but incurs some risk of additional complications. 3. Intra-operative recognition of enterotomy: Possible options are either laparoscopic suture of bowel injury and simultaneous completion of LIHR, or staged LIHR or conversion to open suture-repair. 4. Choice of mesh: "Composite" meshes are regarded as the current standard of care but there is paucity of data regarding potential dangers of intra-peritoneal polypropylene mesh. 5. Technique of mesh-fixation: Trans-parietal sutures are more secure than tacks, with limited data to correlate with post-operative pain. 6. Alarm over post-operative pain: Unlike other advanced laparoscopic operations, the specificity of pain as a marker of intra-abdominal sepsis after LIHR remains unclear. Conclusion : Recognition of and attention to controversial issues will promote increased success of LIHR

Gastric electrical stimulation for treatment of clinically severe gastroparesis

Background: Severe, drug-resistant gastroparesis is a debilitating condition. Several, but not all, patients can get significant relief from nausea and vomiting by gastric electrical stimulation (GES). A trial of temporary, endoscopically delivered GES may be of predictive value to select patients for laparoscopic-implantation of a permanent GES device. Materials and Methods: We conducted a clinical audit of consecutive gastroparesis patients, who had been selected for GES, from May 2008 to January 2012. Delayed gastric emptying was diagnosed by scintigraphy of ≥50% global improvement in symptom-severity and well-being was a good response. Results: There were 71 patients (51 women, 72%) with a median age of 42 years (range: 14-69). The aetiology of gastroparesis was idiopathic (43 patients, 61%), diabetes (15, 21%), or post-surgical (anti-reflux surgery, 6 patients; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 3; subtotal gastrectomy, 1; cardiomyotomy, 1; other gastric surgery, 2) (18%). At presentation, oral nutrition was supplemented by naso-jejunal tube feeding in 7 patients, surgical jejunostomy in 8, or parenterally in 1 (total 16 patients; 22%). Previous intervention included endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin (botox) into the pylorus in 16 patients (22%), pyloroplasty in 2, distal gastrectomy in 1, and gastrojejunostomy in 1. It was decided to directly proceed with permanent GES in 4 patients. Of the remaining, 51 patients have currently completed a trial of temporary stimulation and 39 (77%) had a good response and were selected for permanent GES, which has been completed in 35 patients. Outcome data are currently available for 31 patients (idiopathic, 21 patients; diabetes, 3; post-surgical, 7) with a median follow-up period of 10 months (1-28); 22 patients (71%) had a good response to permanent GES, these included 14 (68%) with idiopathic, 5 (71%) with post-surgical, and remaining 3 with diabetic gastroparesis. Conclusions: Overall, 71% of well-selected patients with intractable gastroparesis had good response to permanent GES at follow-up of up to 2 years