Major Complex Abdominal Wall Repair in Contaminated Fields with Use of a Non-cross-linked Biologic Mesh: A Dual-Institutional Experience

Background Data on the use of biologic mesh in abdominal wall repair in complex cases remain sparse. Aim of this study was to evaluate a non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix for repair of complex contaminated abdominal wall defects. Methods Retrospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing abdominal wall repair with use of Strattice™ Reconstructive Tissue Matrix (LifeCell Corporation, Oxford, UK) between January 2011 and February 2015 at two National Intestinal Failure Units. Results Eighty patients were identified. Indications for abdominal wall repair included enterocutaneous fistula takedown (n = 50), infected synthetic mesh removal (n = 9), restoration of continuity or creation of a stoma with concomitant ventral hernia repair (n = 12), and others (n = 9). The median defect area was 143.0 cm2 (interquartile range or IQR 70.0–256.0 cm2). All had a grade III or IV hernia. Component separation technique (CST) was performed in 54 patients (68%). Complete fascial closure was not possible despite CST and biologic mesh-assisted traction (bridged repair) in 20 patients (25%). In-hospital mortality was 1%. Thirty-six patients (45%) developed a wound infection. None required mesh removal. Of 76 patients with a median clinical follow-up of 7 months (IQR 4–15) available for analysis, 10 patients (13%) developed a hernia recurrence, of whom 3 had undergone bridged repairs. Seven patients developed a postoperative (recurrent) fistula (9%). Conclusion Repair of challenging and contaminated abdominal wall defects can be done effectively with non-cross-linked biologic mesh and component separation technique without the need for mesh removal despite wound infections

The learning effect of intraoperative video-enhanced surgical procedure training

BACKGROUND: The transition from basic skills training in a skills lab to procedure training in the operating theater using the traditional master-apprentice model (MAM) lacks uniformity and efficiency. When the supervising surgeon performs parts of a procedure, training opportunities are lost. To minimize this intervention by the supervisor and maximize the actual operating time for the trainee, we created a new training method called INtraoperative Video-Enhanced Surgical Training (INVEST). METHODS: Ten surgical residents were trained in laparoscopic cholecystectomy either by the MAM or with INVEST. Each trainee performed six cholecystectomies that were objectively evaluated on an Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) global rating scale. Absolute and relative improvements during the training curriculum were compared between the groups. A questionnaire evaluated the trainee's opinion on this new training method. RESULTS: Skill improvement on the OSATS global rating scale was significantly greater for the trainees in the INVEST curriculum compared to the MAM, with mean absolute improvement 32.6 versus 14.0 points and mean relative improvement 59.1 versus 34.6% (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: INVEST significantly enhances technical and procedural skill development during the early learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Trainees were positive about the content and the idea of the curriculum

Effective and efficient learning in the operating theater with intraoperative video-enhanced surgical procedure training

<p>INtraoperative Video Enhanced Surgical procedure Training (INVEST) is a new training method designed to improve the transition from basic skills training in a skills lab to procedural training in the operating theater. Traditionally, the master-apprentice model (MAM) is used for procedural training in the operating theater, but this model lacks uniformity and efficiency at the beginning of the learning curve. This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of INVEST compared to MAM.</p><p>Ten surgical residents with no laparoscopic experience were recruited for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy training curriculum either by the MAM or with INVEST. After a uniform course in basic laparoscopic skills, each trainee performed six cholecystectomies that were digitally recorded. For 14 steps of the procedure, an observer who was blinded for the type of training determined whether the step was performed entirely by the trainee (2 points), partially by the trainee (1 point), or by the supervisor (0 points). Time measurements revealed the total procedure time and the amount of effective procedure time during which the trainee acted as the operating surgeon. Results were compared between both groups.</p><p>Trainees in the INVEST group were awarded statistically significant more points (115.8 vs. 70.2; p <0.001) and performed more steps without the interference of the supervisor (46.6 vs. 18.8; p <0.001). Total procedure time was not lengthened by INVEST, and the part performed by trainees was significantly larger (69.9 vs. 54.1 %; p = 0.004).</p><p>INVEST enhances effectiveness and training efficiency for procedural training inside the operating theater without compromising operating theater time efficiency.</p>

Evaluation of resection of the gastroesophageal junction and jejunal interposition (Merendino procedure) as a rescue procedure in patients with a failed redo antireflux procedure. A single-center experience

Background: Primary antireflux surgery has high success rates but 5 to 20% of patients undergoing antireflux operations can experience recurrent reflux and dysphagia, requiring reoperation. Different surgical approaches after failed fundoplication have been described in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate resection of the gastroesophageal junction with jejunal interposition (Merendino procedure) as a rescue procedure after failed fundoplication. Methods: All patients who underwent a Merendino procedure at the Karolinska University Hospital between 2004 and 2012 after a failed antireflux fundoplication were identified. Data regarding previous surgical history, preoperative workup, postoperative complications, subsequent investigations and re-interventions were collected retrospectively. The follow-up also included questionnaires regarding quality of life, gastrointestinal function and the dumping syndrome. Results: Twelve patients had a Merendino reconstruction. Ten patients had undergone at least two previous fundoplications, of which one patient had four such procedures. The main indication for surgery was epigastric and radiating back pain, with or without dysphagia. Postoperative complications occurred in 8/12 patients (67%). During a median follow-up of 35 months (range 20-61), four (25%) patients had an additional redo procedure with conversion to a Roux-en-Y esophagojejunostomy within 12 months, mainly due to obstructive symptoms that could not be managed conservatively or with endoscopic techniques. Questionnaires scores were generally poor in all dimensions. Conclusions: In our experience, the Merendino procedure seems to be an unsuitable surgical option for patients who require an alternative surgical reconstruction due to a failed fundoplication. However, the small number of patients included in this study as well as the small number of participants who completed the postoperative workout limits this study