Complete mesocolic excision does not increase short-term complications in laparoscopic left-sided colectomies : a comparative retrospective single-center study

Background: Since the implementation of total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer surgery, oncological outcomes improved dramatically. With the technique of complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL), the same surgical principles were introduced to the field of colon cancer surgery. Until now, current literature fails to invariably demonstrate its oncological superiority when compared to conventional surgery, and there are some concerns on increased morbidity. The aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes after left-sided laparoscopic CME versus conventional surgery. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, data on all laparoscopic sigmoidal resections performed during a 3-year period (October 2015 to October 2018) at our institution were collected. A comparative analysis between the CME group-for sigmoid colon cancer-and the non-CME group-for benign disease-was performed. Results: One hundred sixty-three patients met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Data on 66 CME resections were compared with 97 controls. Median age and operative risk were higher in the CME group. One leak was observed in the CME group (1/66) and 3 in the non-CME group (3/97), representing no significant difference. Regarding hospital stay, postoperative complications, surgical site infections, and intra-abdominal collections, no differences were observed. There was a slightly lower reoperation (1.5% versus 6.2%, p = 0.243) and readmission rate (4.5% versus 6.2%, p = 0.740) in the CME group during the first 30 postoperative days. Operation times were significantly longer in the CME group (210 versus 184 min, p < 0.001), and a trend towards longer pathological specimens in the CME group was noted (21 vs 19 cm, p = 0.059). Conclusions: CME does not increase short-term complications in laparoscopic left-sided colectomies. Significantly longer operation times were observed in the CME group

History of the Creation of Self-Gripping Mesh

Self-gripping mesh (ProgripTM, Sofradim Production, Trévoux, France) was introduced in 2006 as a synthetic prosthetic material for reinforcement of the abdominal wall in open inguinal hernia repair. As of September 2022, the self-gripping mesh has been implanted 4 million times. In June 2014 at the annual Mesh congress in Paris during an informal conversation with Dr. Chastan, Dr. Muysoms became intrigued by the history of the invention and creation of this self-gripping mesh. His fascination on this topic, was the initial bead implanted for this project to write down the history of the creation of self-gripping mesh

A multicenter prospective study of patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair with intraperitoneal positioning using the monofilament polyester composite ventral patch : interim results of the PANACEA study

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])

The feasibility of local anesthesia for the surgical treatment of umbilical hernia: a systematic review of the literature

Background: Yearly approximately 4500 umbilical hernias are repaired in The Netherlands, mostly under general anesthesia. The use of local anesthesia has shown several advantages in groin hernia surgery. Local anesthesia might be useful in the treatment of umbilical hernia as well. However, convincing evidence is lacking. We have conducted a systematic review on safety, feasibility, and advantages of local anesthesia for umbilical hernia repair. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Outcome parameters were duration of surgery, surgical site infection, perioperative and postoperative complications, postoperative pain, hernia recurrence, time before discharge, and patient satisfaction. Results: The systematic review resulted in nine included articles. Various anesthetic agents were used, varying from short acting to longer acting agents. There was no consensus regarding the injection technique and no conversions to general anesthesia were described. The most common postoperative complication was surgical site infection, with an overall percentage of 3.4%. There were no postoperative deaths and no allergic reactions described for local anesthesia. The hernia recurrence rate varied from 2 to 7.4%. Almost 90% of umbilical hernia patients treated with local anesthesia were discharged within 24 h, compared with 47% of patients treated with general anesthesia. The overall patient satisfaction rate varied from 89 to 97%. Conclusion: Local anesthesia for umbilical hernia seems safe and feasible. However, the advantages of local anesthesia are not sufficiently demonstrated, due to the heterogeneity of included studies. We, therefore, propose a randomized controlled trial comparing general versus local anesthesia for umbilical hernia repair

Comparing different modalities for the diagnosis of incisional hernia: a systematic review

Purpose: Incisional hernia (IH) is the most frequent complication after abdominal surgery. The diagnostic modality, observer, definition, and diagnostic protocol used for the diagnosis of IH potentially influence the reported prevalence. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of different modalities used to identify IH. Methods: Embase, MEDLINE OvidSP, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies diagnosing IH. Studies comparing the IH detection rate of two different diagnostic modalities or inter-observer variability of one modality were included. Quality assessment of studies was done by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. Article selection and data collection were performed independently by two researchers. PROSPERO registration: CRD42017062307. Results: Fifteen studies representing a total of 2986 patients were included. Inter-observer variation for CT-scan ranged from 11.2 to 69% (n = 678). Disagreement between ultrasound and CT-scan ranged between 6.6 and 17% (n = 221). Ten studies compared physical examination to CT-scan or ultrasound. Disagreement between physical examination and imaging ranged between 7.6 and 39% (n = 1602). Between 15 and 58% of IHs were solely detected by imaging (n = 483). Relative increase in IH prevalence for imaging compared to physical examination ranged from 0.92 to 2.4 (n = 1922). Conclusions: Ultrasound or CT-scan will result in substantial additional IH diagnosis. Lack of consensus regarding the definition of IH might contribute to the disagreement rates. Both the observer and diagnostic modality used could be additional factors explaining varia

Prophylactic retrorectus mesh versus no mesh in midline emergency laparotomy closure for prevention of incisional hernia (PREEMER) : study protocol for a multicentre, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

Background: Despite the fact that emergency midline laparotomy is a risk factor for an incisional hernia, active research on hernia prevention in emergency settings is lacking. Different kinds of meshes and mesh positions have been studied in elective abdominal surgery, but no randomized controlled trials in emergency settings have been published thus far. Method: The PREEMER trial (registration number NCT04311788) is a multicentre, patient- and assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial to be conducted in six hospitals in Finland. A total of 244 patients will be randomized at a 1 : 1 ratio to either the retrorectus mesh group, featuring a self-gripping prophylactic mesh, or to the no mesh (control) group, both closed by small-stitch 4 : 1 closure with continuous slowly absorbable monofilament suturing. The primary outcome of the PREEMER trial is the incidence of incisional hernia 2 years after surgery, which will be detected clinically and/or radiologically. Secondary outcomes are the Comprehensive Complication Index score, incidence of surgical-site infections and fascial dehiscence within 30 days of surgery; the incisional hernia repair rate and mesh- or hernia-related reoperations within the 2- and 5-year follow-ups; the incidence of incisional hernia within the 5-year follow-up; and quality of life measured by RAND-36, the Activities Assessment Scale and the PROMIS questionnaire within 30 days and 2 and 5 years from surgery. Additionally, health-economic explorative measures will be explored. Conclusion: The PREEMER trial will provide level 1 evidence on incisional hernia prevention in an emergency setting.Peer reviewe

How to report educational videos in robotic surgery: an international multidisciplinary consensus statement

n/

Protocol to develop a core outcome set in incisional hernia surgery : the HarMoNY Project

Incisional hernia has an incidence of up to 20% following laparotomy and is associated with significant morbidity and impairment of quality of life. A variety of surgical strategies including techniques and mesh types are available to manage patients with incisional hernia. Previous works have reported significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting for abdominal wall herniae, including ventral and inguinal hernia. This is coupled with under-reporting of important clinical and patient-reported outcomes. The lack of standardisation in outcome reporting contributes to reporting bias, hinders evidence synthesis and adequate data comparison between studies. This project aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) of clinically important, patient-oriented outcomes to be used to guide reporting of future research in incisional hernia. This project has been designed as an international, multicentre, mixed-methods project. Phase I will be a systematic review of current literature to examine the current clinical and patient-reported outcomes for incisional hernia and abdominal wall reconstruction. Phase II will identify the outcomes of importance to all key stakeholders through in depth qualitative interviews. Phase III will achieve consensus on outcomes of most importance and for inclusion into a COS through a Delphi process. Phase IV will achieve consensus on the outcomes that should be included in a final COS. The adoption of this COS into clinical and academic practice will be endorsed by the American, British and European Hernia Societies. Its utilisation in future clinical research will enable appropriate data synthesis and comparison and will enable better clinical interpretation and application of the current evidence base. This study has been registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. CRD42018090084

Prevention of incisional hernias with biological mesh : A systematic review of the literature

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). 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). 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. 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