No abstract

Background Few data are available about the frequency of incisional hernia in an emergency subcostal laparotomy. Our objective is to analyze the incidence of incisional hernia after emergency subcostal laparotomy and evaluate if prophylactic mesh could help prevent it. Methods This study is a monocentric retrospective analysis following STROBE guideline statements of all patients who underwent an emergency subcostal laparotomy between January 2011 and July 2017 in our University Hospital. We compared complications and incidence of incisional hernia between patients who received sutures (Group S; N = 203) and patients with prophylactic onlay mesh (Group M; N = 80). A multivariate risk factor analysis of incisional hernia was performed. An incisional hernia-estimated risk calculator equation was created. Results A total of 283 patients were analyzed. There were 80 patients in Group M and 203 in Group S. In short-term outcomes, length of surgery (213 ± 115 min vs 165 ± 73.3 min, P = 0.001) and hospital stay (16.4 ± 18.7 vs 11.6 days ± 13.4, P = 0.038) were longer in Group M. Long-term follow-up was conducted in 207 patients with a mean follow-up time of 39.3 ± 23 months. Incisional hernia was detected in 29 (19.1%) patients in Group S but in only two (3.8%) patients in Group M (P = 0.008). In the multivariate analysis, a risk factor analysis included wound infection (4.91 HR (2.12-11.4); P \ 0.001), previous hernia repair (2.86 HR (1.24-6.61); P = 0.014), and shock (2.64 HR (1.01-6.93); P = 0.048). Conclusions The incidence of incisional hernia after emergency subcostal laparotomy is high. Risk factors are wound infection, shock, and previous hernia surgery. The use of prophylactic mesh augmentation was safe and reduced the incidence of incisional hernia.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Prevention of incisional hernias with a prophylactic mesh in emergency surgery is controversial. The present study aimed to analyze the long-term results of prophylactic mesh used for preventing incisional hernia after emergency midline laparotomies. Methods This study was a registered (NCT04578561) retrospective analysis of patients who underwent an emergency midline laparotomy between January 2009 and July 2010 with a follow-up period of longer than 2 years. Long-term outcomes and risk factors for the development of incisional hernias between patients who received a prophylactic reinforcement mesh (Group M) and suture (Group S) were compared. Results From an initial 266 emergency midline laparotomies, 187 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 64.4 months (SD 35). Both groups had similar characteristics, except for a higher rate of previous operations (62 vs. 43.2%; P = 0.01) and operation due to a revision laparotomy (32.5 vs.13%; P = 0.02) in the M group. During follow-up, 29.9% of patients developed an incisional hernia (Group S 36.6% vs. Group M 14.3%; P = 0.002). Chronic mesh infections were diagnosed in 2 patients, but no mesh explants were needed, and no patient in the M group developed chronic pain. Long-term risk factors for incisional hernia were as follows: smoking (HR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.318–4.624; P = 0.05), contaminated surgery (HR = 2.98; 95% CI 1.142–7.8; P = 0.02), surgical site infection (SSI; HR = 3.83; 95% CI 1.86–7.86; P = 0.001), and no use of prophylactic mesh (HR = 5.09; 95% CI 2.1–12.2; P = 0.001). Conclusion Incidence of incisional hernias after emergency midline laparotomies is high and increases with time. High-risk patients, contaminated surgery, and surgical site infection (SSI) benefit from mesh reinforcement. Prophylactic mesh use is safe and feasible in emergencies with a low long-term complication rate. Trial registration: NCT04578561. www.clinicaltrials.gov

No abstract

Aim To analyze the outcomes of component separation techniques (CST) to treat incisional hernias (IH) in a large multicenter cohort of patients. Methods All IH repair using CST, registered in EVEREG from July 2012 to December 2019, were included. Data on the pre-operative patient characteristics and comorbidities, IH characteristics, surgical technique, complications, and recurrence were collected. Outcomes between anterior (ACS) and posterior component separation (PCS) techniques were compared. Risk factors for complications and recurrences were analyzed. Results During the study period, 1536 patients underwent CST (45.5% females) with a median age of 64.0 years and median body mass index (BMI) of 29.7 kg/m2. ACS was the most common technique (77.7%). Overall complications were frequent in both ACS and PCS techniques (36.5%), with a higher frequency of wound infection (10.6% vs. 7.0%; P = 0.05) and skin necrosis (4.4% vs. 0.1%; P < 0.0001) with the ACS technique. Main factors leading to major complications were mesh explant (OR 1.72; P = 0.001), previous repair (OR 0.75; P = 0.038), morbid obesity (OR 0.67; P = 0.015), ASA grade (OR 0.62; P < 0.0001), COPD (OR 0.52; P < 0.0001), and longitudinal diameter larger than 10 cm (OR 0.58; P = 0.001). After a minimum follow-up of 6 months (median 15 months; N = 590), 59 (10.0%) recurrences were diagnosed. Operations performed in a non-specialized unit were significantly associated with recurrences (HR 4.903, CI 1.64–14.65; P = 0.004). Conclusion CST is a complex procedure with a high rate of complications. Both ACS and PCS techniques have similar complication and recurrence rates. Operations performed in a specialized unit have better outcomes.

Purpose The objective of this study was to gather information on patient-reported knowledge (PRK) in the field of hernia surgery. Methods A prospective quantitative study was designed to explore different aspects of PRK and opinions regarding hernia surgery. Patients referred for the first time to a surgical service with a presumed diagnosis of hernia and eventual hernia repair were eligible, and those who gave consent completed a simple self-assessment questionnaire before the clinical visit. Results The study population included 449 patients (72.8% men, mean age 61.5). Twenty (4.5%) patients did not have hernia on physical examination. The patient’s perceived health status was “neither bad nor good” or “good” in 56.6% of cases. Also, more patients considered that hernia repair would be an easy procedure (35.1%) rather than a difficult one (9.8%). Although patients were referred by their family physicians, 32 (7.1%) answered negatively to the question of coming to the visit to assess the presence of a hernia. The most important reason of the medical visit was to receive medical advice (77.7%), to be operated on as soon as possible (40.1%) or to be included in the surgical waiting list (35.9%). Also, 46.1% of the patients considered that they should undergo a hernia repair and 56.8% that surgery will be a definitive solution. Conclusion PRK of patients referred for the first time to an abdominal wall surgery unit with a presumed diagnosis of hernia was quite limited and there is still a long way towards improving knowledge of hernia surgery.