Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the best treatment of incisional hernia, taking into account recurrence, complications, discomfort, cosmetic result, and patient satisfaction. Background: Long-term results of incisional hernia repair are lacking. Retrospective studies and the midterm results of this study indicate that mesh repair is superior to suture repair. However, many surgeons are still performing suture repair. Methods: Between 1992 and 1998, a multicenter trial was performed, in which 181 eligible patients with a primary or first-time recurrent midline incisional hernia were randomly assigned to suture or mesh repair. In 2003, follow-up was updated. Results: Median follow-up was 75 months for suture repair and 81 months for mesh repair patients. The 10-year cumulative rate of recurrence was 63% for suture repair and 32% for mesh repair (P Ͻ 0.001). Abdominal aneurysm (P ϭ 0.01) and wound infection (P ϭ 0.02) were identified as independent risk factors for recurrence. In patients with small incisional hernias, the recurrence rates were 67% after suture repair and 17% after mesh repair (P ϭ 0.003). One hundred twenty-six patients completed long-term follow-up (median follow-up 98 months). In the mesh repair group, 17% suffered a complication, compared with 8% in the suture repair group (P ϭ 0.17). Abdominal pain was more frequent in suture repair patients (P ϭ 0.01), but there was no difference in scar pain, cosmetic result, and patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Mesh repair results in a lower recurrence rate and less abdominal pain and does not result in more complications than suture repair. Suture repair of incisional hernia should be abandoned. (Ann Surg 2004;240: 578 -585)

Parietex Composite and Sepramesh combine minimal adhesion formation with maximum mesh incorporation and tensile strength. The authors recommend the use of these meshes for hernia repair in which direct contact with the abdominal viscera cannot be avoided.

No abstract

BackgroundThe association between body composition (e.g. sarcopenia or visceral obesity) and treatment outcomes, such as survival, using single‐slice computed tomography (CT)‐based measurements has recently been studied in various patient groups. These studies have been conducted with different software programmes, each with their specific characteristics, of which the inter‐observer, intra‐observer, and inter‐software correlation are unknown. Therefore, a comparative study was performed.MethodsFifty abdominal CT scans were randomly selected from 50 different patients and independently assessed by two observers. Cross‐sectional muscle area (CSMA, i.e. rectus abdominis, oblique and transverse abdominal muscles, paraspinal muscles, and the psoas muscle), visceral adipose tissue area (VAT), and subcutaneous adipose tissue area (SAT) were segmented by using standard Hounsfield unit ranges and computed for regions of interest. The inter‐software, intra‐observer, and inter‐observer agreement for CSMA, VAT, and SAT measurements using FatSeg, OsiriX, ImageJ, and sliceOmatic were calculated using intra‐class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman analyses. Cohen's κ was calculated for the agreement of sarcopenia and visceral obesity assessment. The Jaccard similarity coefficient was used to compare the similarity and diversity of measurements.ResultsBland–Altman analyses and ICC indicated that the CSMA, VAT, and SAT measurements between the different software programmes were highly comparable (ICC 0.979–1.000, P < 0.001). All programmes adequately distinguished between the presence or absence of sarcopenia (κ = 0.88–0.96 for one observer and all κ = 1.00 for all comparisons of the other observer) and visceral obesity (all κ = 1.00). Furthermore, excellent intra‐observer (ICC 0.999–1.000, P < 0.001) and inter‐observer (ICC 0.998–0.999, P < 0.001) agreement for all software programmes were found. Accordingly, excellent Jaccard similarity coefficients were found for all comparisons (mean ≥ 0.964).ConclusionsFatSeg, OsiriX, ImageJ, and sliceOmatic showed an excellent agreement for CSMA, VAT, and SAT measurements on abdominal CT scans. Furthermore, excellent inter‐observer and intra‐observer agreement were achieved. Therefore, results of studies using these different software programmes can reliably be compared.

Perineal wound healing after eAPR with preoperative radiotherapy for rectal cancer was not improved when using a biological mesh. A significantly lower 1-year perineal hernia rate after biological mesh closure is a promising secondary finding that needs longer follow-up to determine its clinical relevance.