Background: Umbilical and epigastric hernia repairs are frequently performed surgical procedures with an expected low complication rate. Nevertheless, the optimal method of repair with best short-and long-term outcomes remains debatable. The aim was to develop guidelines for the treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias. Methods: The guideline group consisted of surgeons from Europe and North America including members from the European Hernia Society and the Americas Hernia Society. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) critical appraisal checklists, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument were used. A systematic literature search was done on 1 May 2018, and updated on 1 February 2019. Results: Literature reporting specifically on umbilical and epigastric hernias was limited in quantity and quality, resulting in a majority of the recommendations being graded as weak, based on low-quality evidence. The main recommendation was to use mesh for repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias to reduce the recurrence rate. Most umbilical and epigastric hernias may be repaired by an open approach with a preperitoneal flat mesh. A laparoscopic approach may be considered if the hernia defect is large, or if the patient has an increased risk of wound morbidity. Conclusion: This is the first European and American guideline on the treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias. It is recommended that symptomatic umbilical and epigastric hernias are repaired by an open approach with a preperitoneal flat mesh.

Background Rare locations of hernias, as well as primary ventral hernias under certain circumstances (cirrhosis, dialysis, rectus diastasis, subsequent pregnancy), might be technically challenging. The aim was to identify situations where the treatment strategy might deviate from routine management. Methods The guideline group consisted of surgeons from the European and Americas Hernia Societies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used in formulating the recommendations. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) critical appraisal checklists were used to evaluate the quality of full‐text papers. A systematic literature search was performed on 1 May 2018 and updated 1 February 2019. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was followed. Results Literature was limited in quantity and quality. A majority of the recommendations were graded as weak, based on low quality of evidence. In patients with cirrhosis or on dialysis, a preperitoneal mesh repair is suggested. Subsequent pregnancy is a risk factor for recurrence. Repair should be postponed until after the last pregnancy. For patients with a concomitant rectus diastasis or those with a Spigelian or lumbar hernia, no recommendation could be made for treatment strategy owing to lack of evidence. Conclusion This is the first European and American guideline on the treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias in patients with special conditions, including Spigelian and lumbar hernias. All recommendations were weak owing to a lack of evidence. Further studies are needed on patients with rectus diastasis, Spigelian and lumbar hernias.

Ali Serdar Gözen, et al.; Robot-assisted vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: Current status and review of the literature.

Background Nomenclature for mesh insertion during ventral hernia repair is inconsistent and confusing. Several terms, including ‘inlay’, ‘sublay’ and ‘underlay’, can refer to the same anatomical planes in the indexed literature. This frustrates comparisons of surgical practice and may invalidate meta-analyses comparing surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to establish an international classification of abdominal wall planes. Methods A Delphi study was conducted involving 20 internationally recognized abdominal wall surgeons. Different terms describing anterior abdominal wall planes were identified via literature review and expert consensus. The initial list comprised 59 possible terms. Panellists completed a questionnaire that suggested a list of options for individual abdominal wall planes. Consensus on a term was predefined as occurring if selected by at least 80 per cent of panellists. Terms scoring less than 20 per cent were removed. Results Voting started August 2018 and was completed by January 2019. In round 1, 43 terms (73 per cent) were selected by less than 20 per cent of panellists and 37 new terms were suggested, leaving 53 terms for round 2. Four planes reached consensus in round 2, with the terms ‘onlay’, ‘inlay’, ‘preperitoneal’ and ‘intraperitoneal’. Thirty-five terms (66 per cent) were selected by less than 20 per cent of panellists and were removed. After round 3, consensus was achieved for ‘anterectus’, ‘interoblique’, ‘retro-oblique’ and ‘retromuscular’. Default consensus was achieved for the ‘retrorectus’ and ‘transversalis fascial’ planes. Conclusion Consensus concerning abdominal wall planes was agreed by 20 internationally recognized surgeons. Adoption should improve communication and comparison among surgeons and research studies.

No abstract