Search

Introduction: The extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair has several theoretical advantages over the traditional intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair for ventral hernias, including the use of less expensive non-barrier coated mesh and avoiding complications of intraperitoneal mesh. However, one area in need of further investigation is cost and clinical comparisons following robotic eTEP with IPOM., Methods: A retrospective matched cohort study was conducted of patients with midline ventral hernias undergoing robotic eTEP or IPOM at a single academic institution from November 2019-August 2023. Patients were matched based on demographics, hernia defect size, and whether they underwent concomitant procedures. Primary outcomes included supply costs. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of stay, complications, recurrence, and inpatient opioid utilization., Results: In total, 88 matched patients were included: 44 IPOM and 44 eTEP. Mean age was 57 years, BMI 35 kg/m 2 , and 54.5% were male. Hernia size was similar for both groups: 25 [6-73] cm 2 for the IPOMs vs 40 [14-68] cm 2 for eTEPs (p = 0.21). There was no significant difference in total supply costs between IPOMs and eTEPs: $2338 [2021-3249] vs $2082 [1619-3394] (p = 0.5) respectively. Mean operative time was significantly lower for IPOMs 159.6 ± 57.8 min vs 198.0 ± 67.1 (p = 0.006), while the average length of stay was significantly longer for IPOMs: 1.7 ± 1.2 days vs 1.2 ± 1.3 days (p = 0.021). Total inpatient MME utilized was greater for IPOM: 61 [36-102] vs 29 [10-64] MME (p = 0.003). Postoperative complications and recurrence rate were similar., Conclusion: There is no difference in total supply costs between patients undergoing robotic IPOM and eTEP repairs for midline ventral hernias. Though this study did find significant differences in total inpatient MME utilized and length of stay, it is debatable whether these are clinically significant. Further research is needed to determine appropriate indications for eTEP over IPOM., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Residency programs are required to incorporate simulation into their training program. Ideally, simulation provides a safe environment for a trainee to be exposed to both common and challenging clinical scenarios. The purpose of this review is to detail the current state of the most commonly used laparoscopic, endoscopic, and robotic surgery simulation programs in general surgery residency education, including resources required for successful implementation and benchmarks for evaluation., Materials and Methods: Members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Resident and Fellow Task Force (RAFT) Committee performed a literature review using PubMed and training websites. Information regarding the components of the most commonly used laparoscopic, endoscopic, and/or robotic simulation curriculum, including both formal and informal benchmarks for evaluating training competence, were collected., Results: Laparoscopic simulation revolves around the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS). Proficiency-based as well as virtual simulation have been utilized for FLS training curricula. Challenges include less direct translation to the technical complexities that can arise in laparoscopic surgery. Endoscopic simulation focuses on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery. There are virtual reality simulation platforms that can be used for skills assessment and training. Challenges include simulator types and access, as well as structured mentoring and feedback. Robotic simulation training curricula have not been standardized. Simulation includes one primary technology, which can be prohibitive based on cost and requirements for onboarding., Conclusions: While surgical simulation seems to be a fundamental and integrated part of surgical training, it requires a significant number of resources, which can be daunting for residency training programs. Regardless of the barriers outlined, the need for surgical simulation in laparoscopy, endoscopy, and robotics at surgical education training programs is clear., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Routine opioid use in surgical patients has received attention given the opioid epidemic and a renewed focus on the dangers and drawbacks of opioids in the postoperative setting. Little is known about opioid use in bariatric surgery, especially in the inpatient setting. We hypothesize that a standardized opioid-sparing protocol reduces postoperative inpatient opioid use in bariatric surgery patients., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of bariatric surgery patients at a single institution. From March to September 2019, a standardized intraoperative and postoperative opioid-sparing protocol was designed and implemented along with an educational program for patients regarding safe pain management. Inpatient opioid utilization in patients undergoing surgery in the preintervention phase between April and March 2019 was compared to patients from a postintervention phase of October 2019 to December 2020. Opioid utilization was measured in morphine milliequivalents (MME)., Results: A total of 359 patients were included; 192 preintervention and 167 postintervention. Patients were similar demographically. For all patients, mean age was 44.1 years, mean BMI 49.2 kg/m2, and 80% were female. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was performed in 48%, laparoscopic gastric bypass in 34%, robotic sleeve gastrectomy in 17%, and robotic gastric bypass in 1%. In the postintervention phase inpatient opioid utilization was significantly lower [median 134.8 [79.0-240.8] MME preintervention vs. 61.5 [35.5-150.0] MME postintervention (p < 0.001)]. MME prescribed at discharge decreased from a median of 300 MME preintervention to 75 MME postintervention (p < 0.001). In the postintervention phase, 16% of patients did not receive an opioid prescription at discharge compared to 0% preintervention (p < 0.001). When examining by procedure, statistically significant reductions in opioid utilization were seen for each operation., Conclusion: Implementation of a standardized intraoperative and postoperative multimodal pain regimen and educational program significantly reduces inpatient opioid utilization in patients undergoing bariatric surgery., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: With a growing interest in the primary prevention of incisional hernias, it has been hypothesized that different suturing techniques may cause various levels of tissue ischemia. Using ICG laser-induced fluorescence angiography (ICG-FA), we studied the effect of different suture materials and closure techniques on abdominal wall perfusion., Methods: Fifteen porcine subjects underwent midline laparotomy, bilateral skin flap creation, and three separate 7 cm midline fascial incisions. Animals underwent fascial closure with 5 different techniques: (1) Running 0-PDS® II (polydioxanone) Suture with large bites; (2) Running 0-PDS II Suture with small bites; (3) Interrupted figure-of-eight (8) PDS II Suture, (4) Running 0-barbed STRATAFIX™ Symmetric PDS™ Plus Knotless Tissue Control Device large bite; (5) Running 0-STRATAFIX Symmetric PDS Plus Device small bites. ICG-FA signal intensity was recorded prior to fascial incision (baseline), immediately following fascial closure (closure), and at one-week (1-week.). Post-mortem, the abdominal walls were analyzed for inflammation, neovascularity, and necrosis., Results: PDS II Suture with small bites, fascial closure at the caudal 1/3 of the abdominal wall, and the 1-week time period were all independently associated with increased tissue perfusion. There was also a significant increase in tissue perfusion from closure to 1-week when using small bites PDS II Suture compared to PDS II Suture figure-of-8 (p < 0.001) and a trend towards significance when compared with large bites PDS II Suture (p = 0.056). Additionally, the change in perfusion from baseline to 1 week with small bites was higher than with figure of 8 (p = 0.002). Across all locations, small bite PDS II Suture has greater total inflammation than figure of 8 (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The results suggest that the small bite technique increases abdominal wall perfusion and ICG-FA technology can reliably map abdominal wall perfusion. This finding may help explain the reduced incisional hernia rates seen in clinical studies with the small bite closure technique., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Hernia meshes exhibit variability in mechanical properties, and their mechanical match to tissue has not been comprehensively studied. We used an innovative imaging model of in vivo strain tracking and ex vivo mechanical analysis to assess effects of mesh properties on repaired abdominal walls in a porcine model. We hypothesized that meshes with dissimilar mechanical properties compared to native tissue would alter abdominal wall mechanics more than better-matched meshes., Methods: Seven mini-pigs underwent ventral hernia creation and subsequent open repair with one of two heavyweight polypropylene meshes. Following mesh implantation with attached radio-opaque beads, fluoroscopic images were taken at insufflation pressures from 5 to 30 mmHg on postoperative days 0, 7, and 28. At 28 days, animals were euthanized and ex vivo mechanical testing performed on full-thickness samples across repaired abdominal walls. Testing was conducted on 13 mini-pig controls, and on meshes separately. Stiffness and anisotropy (the ratio of stiffness in the transverse versus craniocaudal directions) were assessed., Results: 3D reconstructions of repaired abdominal walls showed stretch patterns. As pressure increased, both meshes expanded, with no differences between groups. Over time, meshes contracted 17.65% (Mesh A) and 0.12% (Mesh B; p = 0.06). Mesh mechanics showed that Mesh A deviated from anisotropic native tissue more than Mesh B. Compared to native tissue, Mesh A was stiffer both transversely and craniocaudally. Explanted repaired abdominal walls of both treatment groups were stiffer than native tissue. Repaired tissue became less anisotropic over time, as mesh properties prevailed over native abdominal wall properties., Conclusions: This technique assessed 3D stretch at the mesh level in vivo in a porcine model. While the abdominal wall expanded, mesh-ingrown areas contracted, potentially indicating stresses at mesh edges. Ex vivo mechanics demonstrate that repaired tissue adopts mesh properties, suggesting that a better-matched mesh could reduce changes to abdominal wall mechanics.

Introduction: Growing number of patients requires revisional bariatric surgery. This study compares perioperative course and outcomes of revisional versus primary bariatric surgery., Methods: Patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery from Jan 1997 to Sept 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Every revisional patient with BMI >35 and age <70 was matched with a primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass control patient based on preoperative BMI, age, sex, and year of surgery. Patients' preoperative indications, intraoperative/postoperative course, and complications were analyzed., Results: Two hundred and fifty five patients underwent revisional bariatric surgery with resulting Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy while 1,674 patients underwent primary gastric bypass in the same time interval. Of 255 patients, 172 patients were paired with 172 primary gastric bypass patients. Revisional bariatric group had preoperative BMI 48 ± 9, age 52 ± 9 years, 93 % female, 44 % laparoscopic, 30 % diabetic, 60 % hypertensive. Primary bypass patients had preoperative BMI 49 ± 8, age 52 ± 9 years, 93 % female, 97 % laparoscopic, 49 % diabetic, 67 % hypertensive. Compared to primary bypass patients, revisional patients had significantly higher estimated blood loss (463.7 vs. 113.3 mL), longer operative time (272.5 vs. 175.5 min), greater risk for ICU stay (N = 24, 14 % vs. N = 2, 1 %), and longer hospital stay (5.6 vs. 2.5 days). There were significantly more intraoperative liver (N = 13, 8 % vs. N = 1, 1 %) and spleen (N = 18, 10 % vs. N = 0) injuries, and more enterotomies (N = 9, 5 % vs. N = 0) in the revisional group. There were also significantly more postoperative complications (N = 94, 55 % vs. N = 48, 28 %), readmissions (N = 27, 16 % vs. N = 12, 7 %), and reoperations (N = 16, 9 % vs. N = 3, 2 %) within 30 days of surgery. Mean percentage weight loss at 1 year was significantly less for revisional patients (27 vs. 37 %). There was no significant difference in 30 day mortality between the two groups (N = 6 vs. 0)., Conclusion: Even in experienced hands, complex revisional bariatric surgery should be approached with significant caution, especially given that weight loss is less substantial.