In 2014, the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias." Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. Methods For the development of the original guidelines, all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For the present update, all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne), the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. Results Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques, it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. Conclusion Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initial guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

IMPORTANCE Despite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for inguinal hernia repair in the US, to date, no level I trials have ever compared robotic inguinal hernia repair to laparoscopic repair. This multicenter randomized clinical trial is the first to compare the robotic platform to laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair.OBJECTIVE To determine whether the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair results in improved postoperative outcomes compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical pilot study was conducted from April 2016 to April 2019, with a follow-up duration of 30 days in 6 academic and academic-affiliated sites. Enrolled in this study were 113 patients with a unilateral primary or recurrent inguinal hernia. After exclusions 102 remained for analysis.INTERVENTIONS Standard laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair or robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESMain outcomes included postoperative pain, health-related quality of life, mobility, wound morbidity, and cosmesis. Secondary outcomes included cost, surgeon ergonomics, and surgeon mental workload. A primary outcome was not selected because this study was designed as a pilot study. The hypothesis was formulated prior to data collection.RESULTS A total of 102 patients were included in the study (54 in the laparoscopic group, mean [SD] age, 57.2 [13.3] years and 48 [88.9%] male; 48 in the robotic group, mean [SD] age, 56.1 [14.1] years and 44 [91.6%] male). There were no differences at the preoperative, 1-week, or 30-day points between the groups in terms of wound events, readmissions, pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale, or quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair was associated with longer median (interquartile range) operative times (75.5 [59.0-93.8] minutes vs 40.5 [29.2-63.8] minutes, respectively; P < .001), higher median (interquartile range

In 2014 the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international “Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias”. Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature.MethodsFor the development of the original guidelines all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based-Medicine. For the present update all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne) the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included.ResultsDue to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques—minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite still insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields.ConclusionGuidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initially guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

No abstract

RRVHR enables true AWR, with myofascial release to offset tension for midline fascial closure, and obviates the need for intraperitoneal mesh. Perioperative morbidity of RRVHR is comparable to LVHR, with shorter length of stay despite a longer operative time and extensive tissue dissection.

IMPORTANCE Biologic mesh is widely used for reinforcing contaminated ventral hernia repairs; however, it is expensive and has been associated with high rates of long-term hernia recurrence. Synthetic mesh is a lower-cost alternative but its efficacy has not been rigorously studied in individuals with contaminated hernias. OBJECTIVE To determine whether synthetic mesh results in superior reduction in risk of hernia recurrence compared with biologic mesh during the single-stage repair of clean-contaminated and contaminated ventral hernias. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter, single-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted from December 2012 to April 2019 with a follow-up duration of 2 years. The trial was completed at 5 academic medical centers in the US with specialized units for abdominal wall reconstruction. A total of 253 adult patients with clean-contaminated or contaminated ventral hernias were enrolled in this trial. Follow-up was completed in April 2021.INTERVENTIONS Retromuscular synthetic or biologic mesh at the time of fascial closure. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the superiority of synthetic mesh vs biologic mesh at reducing risk of hernia recurrence at 2 years based on intent-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included mesh safety, defined as the rate of surgical site occurrence requiring a procedural intervention, and 30-day hospital direct costs and prosthetic costs.RESULTS A total of 253 patients (median [IQR] age, 64 [55-70] years; 117 [46%] male) were randomized (126 to synthetic mesh and 127 to biologic mesh) and the follow-up rate was 92% at 2 years. Compared with biologic mesh, synthetic mesh significantly reduced the risk of hernia recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.23-0.42; P < .001). The overall intent-to-treat hernia recurrence risk at 2 years was 13% (33 of 253 patients). Recurrence risk with biologic mesh was 20.5% (26 of 127 patients) and with synthetic mesh was 5.6% (7 of 126 patients), with an absolute risk reduction of 14.9% with the use of synthetic mesh (95% CI, −23.8% to −6.1%; P = .001). There was no significant difference in overall 2-year risk of surgical site occurrence requiring a procedural intervention between the groups (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.60-2.44; P = .58). Median (IQR) 30-day hospital direct costs were significantly greater in the biologic group vs the synthetic group

Postoperative ileus is a natural part of recovery following abdominal and intestinal surgery. Research in the laboratory and clinical arenas has challenged the long-held belief that enteral nutrition (EN) should not be administered until bowel function has resumed, which is typically judged by a subjective bowel function assessment. Traditional postoperative management begins with clinical monitoring of return of bowel function, followed by a clear liquid diet that is advanced to regular solid food as tolerated. Studies have consistently demonstrated that early EN is safe and well tolerated, showing a reduction in wound morbidity and healing, fewer septic complications, diminished weight loss, and improved protein kinetics in patients administered early EN. Barriers to early enteral feeding include fear of GI morbidity, anastomotic disruption or leak but have not been proven valid in clinical or experimental trials. A clear liquid diet is the most frequently ordered first postoperative meal regardless of early or delayed administration. Although generally well tolerated, this diet fails to provide adequate nutrients to the postsurgical patient. In contrast, advancement to a regular diet as the initial meal has been shown to be well tolerated and provides significantly more nutrients than a clear liquid diet. This article reviews basic GI physiology, including motility, nutrient absorption, and the changes that occur in regulation and function of the GI tract following surgery, as well as clinical data regarding postoperative GI function and diet advancement. This will be applied to the clinical practices of postoperative dietary advancement to discuss the timing and choice of initial feeding in the postoperative patient.

Using real-world evidence, a robotic-assisted approach to RVHR offers the clinical benefit of reduced postoperative LOS. Ongoing monitoring of this technique should be employed through continuous quality improvement to determine the long-term effect on hernia recurrence, complications, patient satisfaction, and overall cost.