Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. Optimising closure of abdominal wall incisions holds a potential to prevent patients suffering from incisional hernias and for important costs savings in health care. Methods The European Hernia Society formed a Guidelines Development Group to provide guidelines for all surgical specialists who perform abdominal incisions in adult patients on the materials and methods used to close the abdominal wall. The guidelines were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and methodological guidance was taken from Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). The literature search included publications up to April 2014. The guidelines were written using the AGREE II instrument. An update of these guidelines is planned for 2017. Results For many of the Key Questions that were studied no high quality data was detected. Therefore, some strong recommendations could be made but, for many Key Questions only weak recommendations or no recommendation could be made due to lack of sufficient evidence. Recommendations To decrease the incidence of incisional hernias it is strongly recommended to utilise a non-midline approach to a laparotomy whenever possible. For elective midline incisions, it is strongly recommended to perform a continuous suturing technique and to avoid the use of rapidly absorbable sutures. It is suggested using a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in a single layer aponeurotic closure technique without separate closure of the peritoneum. A small bites technique with a suture to wound length (SL/WL) ratio at least 4/1 is the current recommended method of fascial closure. Currently, no recommendations can be given on the optimal technique to close emergency laparotomy incisions. Prophylactic mesh augmentation appears effective and safe and can be suggested in high-risk patients, like aortic aneurysm surgery and obese patients. For laparoscopic surgery, it is suggested using the smallest trocar size adequate for the procedure and closure of the fascial defect if trocars larger or equal to 10 mm are used. For single incision laparoscopic surgery, we suggest meticulous closure of the fascial incision to avoid an increased risk of incisional hernias.

IntroductionThe Accreditation and Certification of Hernia Centers and Surgeons (ACCESS) Group of the European Hernia Society (EHS) recognizes that there is a growing need to train specialist abdominal wall surgeons. The most important and relevant argument for this proposal and statement is the growing acceptance of the increasing complexity of abdominal wall surgery due to newer techniques, more challenging cases and the required ‘tailored’ approach to such surgery. There is now also an increasing public awareness with social media, whereby optimal treatment results are demanded by patients. However, to date the complexity of abdominal wall surgery has not been properly or adequately defined in the current literature.MethodsA systematic search of the available literature was performed in May 2019 using Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Springer Link, and the Cochrane Library, with 75 publications identified as relevant. In addition, an analysis of data from the Herniamed Hernia Registry was performed. The percentage of patients with hernia- or patient-related characteristics which unfavorably impacted the outcome of inguinal and incisional hernia repair was also calculated.ResultsAll present guidelines for abdominal wall surgery recommend the utilization of a ‘tailored’ approach. This relies on the prerequisite that any surgical technique used has already been mastered, as well as the recognized learning curves for each of the several techniques that can be used for both inguinal hernia (Lichtenstein, TEP, TAPP, Shouldice) and incisional hernia repairs (laparoscopic IPOM, open sublay, open IPOM, open onlay, open or endoscopic component separation technique). Other hernia- and patient-related characteristics that have recognized complexity include emergency surgery, obesity, recurrent hernias, bilateral inguinal hernias, groin hernia in women, scrotal hernias, large defects, high ASA scores, > 80 years of age, increased medical risk factors and previous lower abdominal surgery. The proportion of patients with at least one of these characteristics in the Herniamed Hernia Registry in the case of both inguinal and incisional hernia is noted to be relatively high at around 70%. In general surgery training approximately 50–100 hernia repairs on average are performed by each trainee, with around only 25 laparo-endoscopic procedures.ConclusionA tailored approach is now employed and seen more so in hernia surgery and this fact is referred to and highlighted in the contemporaneous hernia guidelines published to date. In addition, with the increasing complexity of abdominal wall surgery, the number of procedures actually performed by trainees is no longer considered adequate to overcome any recognized learning curve. Therefore, to supplement general surgery training young surgeons should be offered a clinical fellowship to obtain an additional qualification as an abdominal wall surgeon and thus improve their clinical and operative experience under supervision in this field. Practicing general surgeons with a special interest in hernia surgery can undertake intensive further training in this area by participating in clinical work shadowing in hernia centers, workshops and congresses.

BackgroundThe open abdomen (OA) is an important approach for managing intra-abdominal catastrophes and continues to be the standard of care. Despite this, challenges remain as it is associated with a high incidence of complications and poor outcomes. The objective is to perform a systematic review on dynamic closure techniques for fascial closure during open abdomen management.MethodsAn electronic database search was conducted involving 4 different databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE (WOS) and EMBASE). All studies that described dynamic closure techniques in OA patients were eligible for inclusion. Data collected were synthesized by each outcome of interest.ResultsThirteen studies were included in the final synthesis. Overall methodological quality was low with a high number of retrospective observational studies and low number of patients. All included studies are observational cohort studies. No studies reported on the use of either Wittmann patch, dynamic retention sutures or ABRA system. Two studies reported on the ABRA system in combination with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT), while 9 reported on mesh-mediated fascial traction (MMFT) combined with NPWT. Other types of fascial traction, either by dynamic suture lines or by a self-made silastic tube system, and NPWT were reported in 2 studies. Overall closure rates are 93.2% for the ABRA system + NPWT versus 72.0% for the mesh-mediated fascial traction + NPWT.ConclusionCareful selection and good management of OA patients will avoid prolonged treatment and facilitate early fascial closure. Future research should focus on comparison of different temporary dynamic closure techniques to evolve toward best treatment options, in terms of both fascial closure rates and long-term incisional hernia rates.

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. Antecedentes Las hernias de localización rara, así como las hernias ventrales primarias en determinadas circunstancias (cirrosis, diálisis, diástasis de recto, tras un embarazo) pueden ser complejas desde el punto de vista técnico. El objetivo fue identificar situaciones en las que la estrategia de tratamiento pudiera ser diferente del tratamiento habitual. Métodos Esta guía fue elaborada por cirujanos de las sociedades europeas y americana de hernia (European Hernia Society, EHS y American Hernia Society, AHS). La búsqueda sistemática de la literatura se efectuó el 1 de mayo de 2018 y se actualizó el 1 de febrero de 2019. Para evaluar la calidad de los artículos completos seleccionados se utilizó la normativa SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network). Las recomendaciones formuladas siguieron la metodología GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) y la redacción de la guía siguió las normas AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). Resultados La literatura es limitada en cantidad y calidad. La mayoría de las recomendaciones se calificaron como débiles en función de la baja calidad de la evidencia. En pacientes con cirrosis o en diálisis, se sugiere una reparación con malla preperitoneal. Un embarazo tras la reparación de una hernia es un factor de riesgo de recidiva. La reparación debería posponerse hasta después del último embarazo. Debido a la falta de evidencia no se pudo hacer ninguna recomendación para la reparación de hernias en pacientes con diástasis de recto concomitante o con hernias de Spigel o lumbares. Conclusión Esta es la primera guía europea y americana del tratamiento de hernias umbilicales y epigástricas en pacientes con patologías especiales, incluyendo las hernias de Spigel y lumbares. Todas las recomendaciones fueron débiles debido a la falta de evidencia. Se necesitan más estudios en pacientes con diástasis de recto, hernias de Spigel y lumbares. This guideline addresses the treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias in clinically challenging situations (cirrhosis, dialysis, subsequent pregnancy, rectus diastasis), as well as the treatment of Spigelian and primary lumbar hernias. Emphasises the need for better evidence

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 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 initial guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Purpose Surgical repair of complex abdominal wall hernias remains technically demanding and is widely recognized as a risk factor for unfavorable outcomes with high recurrence and morbidity rates. The objective is to assess short- and long-term complications after open intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair combined with bilateral anterior component separation (ACS) for large and difficult incisional hernias, alongside evaluating hernia recurrence rates. Methods This retrospective analysis utilized data sourced from Hospital electronic health records and a prospective database at an academic tertiary referral center. Data collection was carried out from patients operated between January 2006 and December 2017. Eligible patients had complex incisional hernias measuring at least 10 cm in their transverse diameter and had an open IPOM repair with bilateral ACS. Results In our study group of 45 patients, the 30-day surgical site occurrence (SSO) rate was high (37.8%), primarily consisting of superficial postoperative complications as seroma (17.8%) and wound dehiscence (6.7%). Among six patients (13.3%), wound complications escalated to chronic infected mesh-related problems, leading to complete mesh removal in four cases (8.9%) and partial mesh removal in two cases (4.4%). Regarding long-term complications, five patients (11.1%) developed enterocutaneous fistula. The recurrence rate was modest [5 out of 41 (12.2%)] over a median follow-up period of 99 months. Conclusions Despite a high SSO rate, application of the open IPOM technique with ACS could serve as a valuable rescue option for managing large and complex hernias, with acceptable hernia recurrence rates at long-term follow-up.

Purpose A clear definition of “complex (abdominal wall) hernia” is missing, though the term is often used. Practically all “complex hernia” literature is retrospective and lacks proper description of the population. There is need for clarification and classification to improve patient care and allow comparison of different surgical approaches. The aim of this study was to reach consensus on criteria used to define a patient with “complex” hernia. Methods Three consensus meetings were convened by surgeons with expertise in complex abdominal wall hernias, aimed at laying down criteria that can be used to define “complex hernia” patients, and to divide patients in severity classes. To aid discussion, literature review was performed to identify hernia classification systems, and to find evidence for patient and hernia variables that influence treatment and/or prognosis. Results Consensus was reached on 22 patient and hernia variables for “complex” hernia criteria inclusion which were grouped under four categories: “Size and location”, “Contamination/soft tissue condition”, “Patient history/risk factors”, and “Clinical scenario”. These variables were further divided in three patient severity classes (‘Minor’, ‘Moderate’, and ‘Major’) to provide guidance for peri-operative planning and measures, the risk of a complicated post-operative course, and the extent of financial costs associated with treatment of these hernia patients. Conclusion Common criteria that can be used in defining and describing “complex” (abdominal wall) hernia patients have been identified and divided under four categories and three severity classes. Next step would be to create and validate treatment algorithms to guide the choice of surgical technique including mesh type for the various complex hernias.

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.