No abstract

With the Internet-based English- and German-language hernia register, a new instrument is now available for outcome research in hernia surgery.

IntroductionIt is known that recurrences continue to occur after the follow-up period of 1–5 years usually used in most hernia studies. By reviewing the data in the Herniamed Hernia Registry documenting the time interval between the recurrent operation and previous inguinal hernia repair, the present study identifies the temporal course of onset of recurrence.Patients and MethodsProspective data were recorded in the Herniamed Registry between 1 September 2009 and 4 May 2015 on a total of 145,590 patients with 171,143 inguinal hernia operations. These included 18,774 operations due to an inguinal hernia recurrence (10.94%). During the same period, prospective data were collected on 24,385 incisional hernia operations. The latter cases included 5,328 patients with a recurrent incisional hernia (21.85%).ResultsOnly 57.46% of all inguinal hernia recurrences occurred within 10 years of the previous inguinal hernia operation. Some of the remaining 42.54% of all recurrences occurred only much later, even after more than 50 years. The course of onset of recurrence is markedly different for incisional hernia. About 91.87% of such recurrences occur already within 10 years of the last operation.ConclusionAscertainment of the actual recurrence rate after hernia repair calls for a follow-up of 10 years for incisional hernia and of 50 years for inguinal hernia. The data collected can be used to give an approximate estimate with a shorter follow-up.

The endoscopic procedures TEP and TAPP and the open techniques Lichtenstein, Plug and Patch, and PHS currently represent the gold standard in inguinal hernia repair recommended in the guidelines of the European Hernia Society, the International Endohernia Society, and the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery. Eighty-two percent of experienced hernia surgeons use the “tailored approach,” the differentiated use of the several inguinal hernia repair techniques depending on the findings of the patient, trying to minimize the risks. The following differential therapeutic situations must be distinguished in inguinal hernia repair: unilateral in men, unilateral in women, bilateral, scrotal, after previous pelvic and lower abdominal surgery, no general anesthesia possible, recurrence, and emergency surgery. Evidence-based guidelines and consensus conferences of experts give recommendations for the best approach in the individual situation of a patient. This review tries to summarize the recommendations of the various guidelines and to transfer them into a practical decision tree for the daily work of surgeons performing inguinal hernia repair.

The results obtained with short-term ertapenem therapy (4 days) showed that this was as effective as standard therapy (7 days) for treatment of uncomplicated sigmoid diverticulitis.

PurposeIn meta-analyses and systematic reviews comparing laparoscopic with open repair of ventral hernias, data on umbilical, epigastric, and incisional hernias are pooled. Based on data from the Herniamed Hernia Registry, we aimed to investigate whether the differences in the therapy and treatment results justified such an approach.MethodsBetween 1st September 2009 and 31st August 2013, 31,664 patients with a ventral hernia were enrolled in the Herniamed Hernia Registry. The implicated hernias included 16,206 umbilical hernias, 3,757 epigastric hernias, and 11,701 incisional hernias. Data on the surgical techniques, postoperative complication rates, and 1-year follow-up results were subjected to statistical analysis to identify any significant differences between the various hernia types.ResultsThe laparoscopic IPOM technique was used significantly more often for incisional hernia than for epigastric hernia, 31.3 vs. 24.0%, respectively, and was used for 12.9% of umbilical hernias (p < 0.0001). Likewise, the open technique with suturing of defect was used significantly more often for umbilical hernia than for epigastric hernia, 56.1 vs. 35.4%, respectively, and was used for 12.5% of incisional hernias (p < 0.0001). The postoperative complication rates of 3.2% for umbilical hernia and 3.5% for epigastric hernia were significantly lower than for incisional hernia, at 9.2% (p < 0.0001). That was also true for the reoperation rates due to postoperative complications, of 1.0 vs. 1.2 vs. 4.2% (p < 0.0001). The 1-year follow-up revealed significantly higher recurrence rates as well as rates of chronic pain needing treatment of 6.3 and 7.9%, respectively, for incisional hernia, compared with 4.1 and 4.3%, respectively, for epigastric hernia, and 2 and 1.9%, respectively, for umbilical hernia (p < 0.0001).ConclusionSince significant differences were identified in the therapy and treatment results between umbilical hernia, epigastric hernia, and incisional hernia, scientific studies should be conducted comparing the various surgical techniques only for a single hernia type.

IntroductionThe component separation technique (CST) was introduced to abdominal wall reconstruction to treat large, complex hernias. It is very difficult to compare the published findings because of the vast number of technical modifications to CST as well as the heterogeneity of the patient population operated on with this technique.Material and MethodsThe main focus of the literature search conducted up to August 2017 in Medline and PubMed was on publications reporting comparative findings as well as on systematic reviews in order to formulate statements regarding the various CSTs.ResultsCST without mesh should no longer be performed because of too high recurrence rates. Open anterior CST has too high a surgical site occurrence rate and henceforth should only be conducted as endoscopic and perforator sparing anterior CST. Open posterior CST and posterior CST with transversus abdominis release (TAR) produce better results than open anterior CST. To date, no significant differences have been found between endoscopic anterior, perforator sparing anterior CST and posterior CST with transversus abdominis release. Robot-assisted posterior CST with TAR is the latest, very promising alternative. The systematic use of biologic meshes cannot be recommended for CST.ConclusionCST should always be performed with mesh as endoscopic or perforator sparing anterior or posterior CST. Robot-assisted posterior CST with TAR is the latest development.

No abstract