IntroductionWorldwide, more than 20 million patients undergo groin hernia repair annually. The many different approaches, treatment indications and a significant array of techniques for groin hernia repair warrant guidelines to standardize care, minimize complications, and improve results. The main goal of these guidelines is to improve patient outcomes, specifically to decrease recurrence rates and reduce chronic pain, the most frequent problems following groin hernia repair. They have been endorsed by all five continental hernia societies, the International Endo Hernia Society and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.MethodsAn expert group of international surgeons (the HerniaSurge Group) and one anesthesiologist pain expert was formed. The group consisted of members from all continents with specific experience in hernia-related research. Care was taken to include surgeons who perform different types of repair and had preferably performed research on groin hernia surgery. During the Group’s first meeting, evidence-based medicine (EBM) training occurred and 166 key questions (KQ) were formulated. EBM rules were followed in complete literature searches (including a complete search by The Dutch Cochrane database) to January 1, 2015 and to July 1, 2015 for level 1 publications. The articles were scored by teams of two or three according to Oxford, SIGN and Grade methodologies. During five 2-day meetings, results were discussed with the working group members leading to 136 statements and 88 recommendations. Recommendations were graded as “strong” (recommendations) or “weak” (suggestions) and by consensus in some cases upgraded. In the Results and summary section below, the term “should” refers to a recommendation. The AGREE II instrument was used to validate the guidelines. An external review was performed by three international experts. They recommended the guidelines with high scores.Results and summaryThe risk factors for inguinal hernia (IH) include: family history, previous contra-lateral hernia, male gender, age, abnormal collagen metabolism, prostatectomy, and low body mass index. Peri-operative risk factors for recurrence include poor surgical techniques, low surgical volumes, surgical inexperience and local anesthesia. These should be considered when treating IH patients. IH diagnosis can be confirmed by physical examination alone in the vast majority of patients with appropriate signs and symptoms. Rarely, ultrasound is necessary. Less commonly still, a dynamic MRI or CT scan or herniography may be needed. The EHS classification system is suggested to stratify IH patients for tailored treatment, research and audit. Symptomatic groin hernias should be treated surgically. Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic male IH patients may be managed with “watchful waiting” since their risk of hernia-related emergencies is low. The majority of these individuals will eventually require surgery; therefore, surgical risks and the watchful waiting strategy should be discussed with patients. Surgical treatment s...

Background The material and the surgical technique used to close an abdominal wall incision are important determinants of the risk of developing an incisional hernia.

An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.

After reviewing the available classifications for groin hernias, the European Hernia Society (EHS) proposes an easy and simple classification based on the Aachen classification. The EHS will promote the general and systematic use of this classification for intraoperative description of the type of hernia and to increase the comparison of results in the literature.

BackgroundEffective repair of hernia is a difficult task. There have been many advances in hernia repair techniques over the past 50 years, but new strategies must be considered to enhance the success of herniorrhaphy.DiscussionAt the 30th International Congress of the European Hernia Society, nine experts in hernia repair and experimental mesh evaluation participated in a roundtable discussion about today’s unmet needs in hernia repair, including what constitutes an “ideal” hernia repair and the portfolio of “ideal” mesh prostheses. Defining characteristics of lightweight mesh, mesh alternatives, the surgeon’s role in hernia repair, adverse events, the unmet requirements for today’s hernia repair, and optimized animal models were among the topics discussed.ConclusionThe ideal mesh’s construction is still in progress, but greater understanding of its critical characteristics was explored. It is hoped that these suggestions will lead to the development of improved hernia treatments and a maximally effective portfolio of hernia mesh prostheses.

Results of clinical applications of NOTES in the IMTN Study showed the feasibility of different methods of this new minimally invasive alternative for laparoscopic and open surgery.

The main advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery are the availability of three-dimensional vision and easier instrument manipulation than can be obtain with standard laparoscopy. The learning curve to master the robot was >or= 10 robotic procedures. The main limitations are the large diameter of the instruments (8 mm) and the limited number of robotic arms (maximum, three). We consider these technical shortcomings to be the cause for our conversions, because it is difficult to manage bleeding episodes with only two operating instruments. The benefit to the patient must be evaluated carefully and proven before this technology can become widely accepted in general surgery.

Following the spread of the infection from the new SARS-CoV2 coronavirus in March 2020, several surgical societies have released their recommendations to manage the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for the daily clinical practice. The recommendations on emergency surgery have fueled a debate among surgeons on an international level. We maintain that laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis, even in the COVID-19 era. Moreover, since laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not more likely to spread the COVID-19 infection than open cholecystectomy, it must be organized in such a way as to be carried out safely even in the present situation, to guarantee the patient with the best outcomes that minimally invasive surgery has shown to have.