Search

Objective: We aimed to determine whether n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NB2C) adhesive is a safe and effective mechanism for nonpenetrating mesh and peritoneal fixation during laparoscopic groin hernia repair., Background: Chronic pain after laparoscopic groin hernia repair has been associated with penetrating fixation, but there had been no US Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for nonpenetrating fixation in this context., Methods: Patients undergoing laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAP) or totally extraperitoneal (TEP) groin hernia repair with mesh at 1 of 5 academic medical centers were randomized to mesh (TAP/TEP) and peritoneal (TAP) fixation with NB2C adhesive or absorbable tacks. The primary outcome was improvement in pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) at 6 months. The noninferiority margin was 0.9 (α = 0.025; β = 80%). Recurrence, successful use of the device, quality of life, and rates of adverse events (AEs) were secondary outcomes., Results: From 2019 to 2021, 284 patients were randomized to either NB2C adhesive or absorbable tacks (n = 142/142). Patient and hernia characteristics were comparable, and 65% were repaired using a TAP approach. The difference in VAS improvement at 6 months with NB2C adhesive was not inferior to absorbable tacks in intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, respectively (0.25 [95% CI, -0.33 to 0.82]; P = 0.013; 0.22 [95% CI, -0.36 to 0.80], noninferiority P = 0.011). There were no differences in secondary outcomes including recurrence, successful use of each device to fixate the mesh and peritoneum, quality of life, and additional VAS pain scores. Rates of adverse and serious AEs were also comparable., Conclusions: NB2C adhesive is safe and effective for mesh fixation and peritoneal closure during laparoscopic groin hernia repair., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Mesh repair of parastomal hernia is widely accepted as superior to non-mesh repair, yet the most favorable surgical approach is a subject of continued debate. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of open versus laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair., Methods: An IRB-approved retrospective review was conducted comparing laparoscopic (LPHR) or open (OPHR) parastomal hernia repair performed between 2009 and 2017 at our facilities. Patient demographics, preoperative characteristics, operative details, and clinical outcomes were compared by surgical approach. Subgroup analysis was performed by location of mesh placement. Repair longevity was measured using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. Intention to treat analysis was used for this study based on initial approach to the repair., Results: Sixty-two patients (average age of 61 years) underwent repair (31 LPHR, 31 OPHR). Patient age, gender, BMI, ASA Class, and comorbidity status were similar between OPHR and LPHR. Stoma relocation was more common in OPHR (32% vs 7%, p = .022). Open sublay subgroup was similar to LPHR in terms of wound class and relocation. Open "Other" and Sublay subgroups resulted in more wound complications compared to LPHR (70% and 48% vs 27%, p = .036). Operative duration and hospital length of stay were less with LPHR (p < .001). After adjustment for prior hernia repair, risk of recurrence was higher for OPHR (p = .022) and Open Sublay and Other subgroups compared to LPHR (p = .005 and p = .027, respectively)., Conclusions: Laparoscopic repair of parastomal hernias is associated with shorter operative duration, decreased length of stay, fewer short-term wound complications, and increased longevity of repair compared to open repairs. Direct comparison of repair longevity between LPHR and OPHR with mesh using Kaplan-Meier estimate is unique to this study. Further study is warranted to better understand methods of parastomal hernia repair associated with fewer complications and increased durability.

Background: Preoperative opioid use is a risk factor for complications after some surgical procedures. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of preoperative opiates on outcomes after ventral hernia repair., Methods: With institutional review board approval, we conducted a retrospective review of consecutive ventral hernia repair cases during a 4-y period., Results: A striking 48% of the total 234 patients met criteria for preoperative opioid use. Preoperative characteristics and operative details were similar between patient groups (preoperative opioid use versus no preoperative opioid use). Median duration of hospital stay trended toward an increase for opioid users versus nonopioid users (P = .06). Return of bowel function was delayed in opioid users compared with nonopioid users (P = .018). Incidence of superficial surgical site infection was increased among patients who used opioids preoperatively (27% vs 8.3%; P <.001) and remained so after multivariable logistic regression, (adjusted odds ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.2-6.7; P = .013)., Conclusion: Among patients undergoing ventral hernia repair, those with preoperative opioid use experienced an increased incidence of superficial surgical site infection compared with patients without preoperative opioid use. Further study is needed to understand the relationship between opioid use and surgical site infection after ventral hernia repair., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mesh hernia repair is widely accepted because of the associated reduction in hernia recurrence compared with suture-based repair. Despite initiatives to reduce risk, mesh infection and mesh removal are a significant challenge. In an era of healthcare value, it is essential to understand the global cost of care, including the incidence and cost of complications. The purpose of this study was to identify the outcomes and costs of care of patients who required the removal of infected hernia mesh. Methods: A review of databases from 2006 through June 2018 identified patients who underwent both ventral hernia repair (VHR) and re-operation for infected mesh removal. Patient demographic and operative details for both procedures, including age, Body Mass Index, mesh type, amount of time between procedures, and information regarding interval procedures were obtained. Clinical outcome measures were the length of the hospital stay, hospital re-admission, incision/non-incision complications, and re-operation. Hospital cost data were obtained from the cost accounting system and were combined with the clinical data for a cost and clinical representation of the cases. Results: Thirty-four patients underwent both VHR and removal of infected mesh material over the 12-year time frame and were included in the analyses; the average age at VHR was 48 years, and 16 patients (47%) were female. Following VHR, 21 patients (62%) experienced incision complications within 90 days post-operatively, the complications ranging from superficial surgical site infection (SSI) to evisceration. A mean of 22.65 months passed between procedures. After mesh removal, 16 patients (47%) experienced further incisional complications; and 22 (65%) patients had at least one re-admission. Eighteen patients (53%) required a minimum of one additional related operative procedure after mesh removal. Median hospital costs nearly doubled (p < 0.001) for the mesh removal ($23,841 [interquartile range {IQR} $13,596-$42,148]) compared with the VHR admission ($13,394 [IQR $8,424-$22,161]) not accounting for re-admission costs. A majority experienced hernia recurrence subsequent to mesh removal. Conclusions: Mesh infection after hernia repair is associated with significant morbidity and costs. Hospital re-admission, re-operations, and recurrences are common among these patients, resulting in greater healthcare resource utilization. Development of strategies to prevent mesh infection, identify patients most likely to experience infectious complications, and define best practices for the care of patients with mesh infection are needed.

Parastomal hernias (PHs) frequently complicate enterostomy creation. Decision for PH repair (PHR) is driven by patient symptoms due to the frequency of complications and recurrences. The European Hernia Society (EHS) PH classification is based on the PH defect size and the presence/absence of concomitant incisional hernia. The aim of this study was to evaluate PHR outcomes based on EHS classification. An Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective review of a prospective database between 2009 and 2017 was performed. Patient demographics, enterostomy type, EHS classification, operative technique, and clinical outcomes (postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, and PH recurrence) were obtained. Cases were analyzed by EHS classifications I and II (SmallPH) versus III and IV (LargePH). Sixty-two patients underwent PHR (35: SmallPH, 27: LargePH). Patient groups (SmallPH vs LargePH) were similar based on American Society of Anesthesiologists Class III and obesity. Hernia recurrence was seen in 26 per cent of repairs with no difference between groups. The median recurrence-free survival was 3.9 years. There was no difference in superficial SSI, deep SSI, nonwound complications, or readmission between SmallPH and LargePH. Both small and large PHs experience similar outcomes after repair. Strategies to improve outcomes should be developed and implemented universally across all EHS PH classes.

Background: Patients undergoing ventral hernia repair (VHR) with biologic mesh (BioM) have higher hospital costs compared with synthetic mesh (SynM). This study compares 90-d pre- and post-VHR hospital costs (180-d) among BioM and SynM based on infection risk., Methods: This retrospective National Surgical Quality Improvement Program study matched patient perioperative risk with resource utilization cost for a consecutive series of VHR repairs. Patient infection risks, clinical and financial outcomes were compared in unmatched SynM (n = 303) and BioM (n = 72) groups. Propensity scores were used to match 35 SynM and BioM pairs of cases with similar infection risk for outcomes analysis., Results: BioM patients in the unmatched group were older with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and wound classification, and they more frequently underwent open repairs for recurrent hernias. Wound surgical site infections were more frequent in unmatched BioM patients (P = 0.001) as were 180-d costs ($43.8k versus $14.0k, P < 0.001). Propensity matching resulted in 31 clean cases. In these low-risk patients, wound occurrences and readmissions were identical, but 180-d costs remained higher ($31.8k versus $15.5k, P < 0.001). There were no differences in hospital 180-d diagnostic, emergency room, intensive care unit, floor, pharmacy, or therapeutic costs. However, 180-d operating room services and supply costs were higher in the BioM group ($21.1k versus $7.1k, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: BioM is used more commonly in hernia repairs involving higher wound class and ASA scores and recurrent hernias. Clinical outcomes after low-risk VHRs are similar; SynM utilization in low-risk hernia repairs was more cost-effective., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)