Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

PurposeThe ideal location for mesh placement in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) is still up for debate. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) to evaluate the outcomes of patients who received intraperitoneal mesh versus those that received extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive VHR.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus from inception to May 3, 2021. We selected studies comparing intraperitoneal mesh versus extraperitoneal mesh placement in minimally invasive VHR. A meta-analysis was done for the outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence. A subgroup analysis was conducted for a subset of studies comparing patients who have undergone intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus extended totally extraperitoneal approach (e-TEP).ResultsA total of 11 studies (2320 patients) were identified. We found no statistically significant difference between patients who received intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh for outcomes of SSI, seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence [(RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.60–4.27), (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.68–2.81), (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.45–3.72), (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.69–2.86), and (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.22–6.63), respectively]. The subgroup analysis had findings similar to the overall analysis.ConclusionBased on short-term results, extraperitoneal mesh does not appear to be superior to intraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. The choice of mesh location should be based on the current evidence, surgeon, and center experience as well as individualized to each patient.

Guidelines are increasingly determining the decision process in day-to-day clinical work. Guidelines describe the current best possible standard in diagnostics and therapy. They should be developed by an international panel of experts, whereby alongside individual experience, above all, the results of comparative studies are decisive. According to the results of high-ranking scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, statements and recommendations are formulated, and these are graded strictly according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines can therefore be valuable in helping particularly the young surgeon in his or her day-to-day work to find the best decision for the patient when confronted with a wide and confusing range of options. However, even experienced surgeons benefit because by virtue of a heavy workload and commitment, they often find it difficult to keep up with the ever-increasing published literature. All guidelines require regular updating, usually every 3 years, in line with progress in the field. The current Guidelines focus on technique and perioperative management of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and constitute the first comprehensive guidelines on this topic. In this issue of Surgical Endoscopy, the first part of the Guidelines is published including sections on basics, indication for surgery, perioperative management, and key points of technique. The next part (Part 2) of the Guidelines will address complications and comparisons between open and laparoscopic techniques. Part 3 will cover mesh technology, hernia prophylaxis, technique-related issues, new technologic developments, lumbar and other unusual hernias, and training/education.

PurposeSeroma formation and recurrence in large inguinal hernia still remain an important clinical complication despite decades since the advent of mesh repair.MethodsIn our prospective comparative analysis, we want to evaluate the effect of direct hernia defect closure on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in two tertiary care institutions in Singapore. The direct hernia defects were closed with non-absorbable sutures incorporating the pseudosac.ResultsA group of 241 patients underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair for a total of 378 direct defects from April 2014 to July 2018. Of these patients, 98 (40.6%) patients underwent hernia repair without closure of their direct defect while 143 (59.4%) patients underwent direct defect closure. No significant differences were observed between the two patient populations’ demographic information and the mean operative time. A total of 219 direct defects were closed and 159 direct defects were not repaired. Compared to the group that did not undergo direct defect closure, the group that had closure of the direct defects demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in recurrence (4.4% versus 0.9%, p = 0.036) and seroma formation (12.6% versus 6.4%, p = 0.045).ConclusionDirect defect closure has proven to be effective in reducing recurrence and seroma formation post-operatively in patients undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Randomized controlled trials will be required to further evaluate these outcomes.

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.

IntroductionLateral ventral hernia (LVH) is rare and can be primary or secondary. Surgical treatment of this rare hernia type is challenging due the anatomic location and technical challenges in placement and secure anchoring of mesh.MethodPatient demographic data, intra-operative data and post-operative outcomes on all LVH repairs performed with endo-laparoscopic and robotic approach between 2016 to 2018 were reviewed and analysed.Results22 LVH were repaired in 21 patients. 9 had primary hernia and 13 had secondary hernia. All patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for hernia repair with no conversion to open surgery. Fascial defect closure and placement of mesh were performed in all cases. Different approaches were utilized: 9 hernia repaired with laparoscopic intra-peritoneal on-lay mesh technique with defect closure (IPOM +), 4 had laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal repair (TAPP), another 4 had extended totally extra-peritoneal repair (eTEP), 3 had robotic TAPP (rTAPP) and 2 repaired with trans-abdominal partial extra-peritoneal (TAPE) approach. 4 (19%) of the patients developed post-operative seroma which were managed conservatively. No other significant complication was noted, and no chronic pain or recurrence reported within a minimum follow-up of 12 months.ConclusionThis case series gives a broad outline of possible MIS options available for LVH repair and recommendations for a tailored approach. The surgical technique needs to be individualized according to the size and anatomic location of the defect, other intra-operative findings and patient characteristics.