Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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.

The European Hernia Society (EHS) is proud to present the EHS Guidelines for the Treatment of Inguinal Hernia in Adult Patients. The Guidelines contain recommendations for the treatment of inguinal hernia from diagnosis till aftercare. They have been developed by a Working Group consisting of expert surgeons with representatives of 14 country members of the EHS. They are evidence-based and, when necessary, a consensus was reached among all members. The Guidelines have been reviewed by a Steering Committee. Before finalisation, feedback from different national hernia societies was obtained. The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was used by the Cochrane Association to validate the Guidelines. The Guidelines can be used to adjust local protocols, for training purposes and quality control. They will be revised in 2012 in order to keep them updated. In between revisions, it is the intention of the Working Group to provide every year, during the EHS annual congress, a short update of new high-level evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCTs] and meta-analyses). Developing guidelines leads to questions that remain to be answered by specific research. Therefore, we provide recommendations for further research that can be performed to raise the level of evidence concerning certain aspects of inguinal hernia treatment. In addition, a short summary, specifically for the general practitioner, is given. In order to increase the practical use of the Guidelines by consultants and residents, more details on the most important surgical techniques, local infiltration anaesthesia and a patient information sheet is provided. The most important challenge now will be the implementation of the Guidelines in daily surgical practice. This remains an important task for the EHS. The establishment of an EHS school for teaching inguinal hernia repair surgical techniques, including tips and tricks from experts to overcome the learning curve (especially in endoscopic repair), will be the next step. Working together on this project was a great learning experience, and it was worthwhile and fun. Cultural differences between members were easily overcome by educating each other, respecting different views and always coming back to the principles of evidence-based medicine. The members of the Working Group would like to thank the EHS board for their support and especially Ethicon for sponsoring the many meetings that were needed to finalise such an ambitious project.

Purpose A classification of parastomal hernias (PH) is needed to compare different populations described in various trials and cohort studies, complete the previous inguinal and ventral hernia classifications of the European Hernia Society (EHS) and will be integrated into the EuraHS database (European Registry of Abdominal Wall Hernias). Methods Several members of the EHS board and invited experts gathered for 2 days to discuss the development of an EHS classification of PH. The discussions were based on a literature review and critical appraisal of existing classifications. Results The classification proposal is based on the PH defect size (small is ≤5 cm) and the presence of a concomitant incisional hernia (cIH). Four types were defined: Type I, small PH without cIH; Type II, small PH with cIH; Type III, large PH without cIH; and Type IV, large PH with cIH. In addition, the classification grid includes details about whether the hernia recurs after a previous PH repair or whether it is a primary PH. Clinical validation is needed in the future to assess if the classification allows us to differentiate the treatment strategy and if the classification impacts outcome in these different subgroups. Conclusion A classification of PH divided into subgroups according to size and cIH was formulated with the aim of improving the ability to compare different studies and their results.

IntroductionAlthough many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations.MethodsA European working group, “BioMesh Study Group”, composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used.ResultsThe cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes.ConclusionThe routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.

Purpose In 2009, the European Hernia Society published the EHS Guidelines for the Treatment of Inguinal Hernia in Adult Patients. The Guidelines contain recommendations for the treatment of inguinal hernia from diagnosis till aftercare. The guidelines expired January 1, 2012. To keep them updated, a revision of the guidelines was planned including new level 1 evidence. Methods The original Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine ranking was used. All relevant level 1A and level 1B literature from May 2008 to June 2010 was searched (Medline and Cochrane) by the Working Group members. All chapters were attributed to the two responsible authors in the initial guidelines document. One new chapter on fixation techniques was added. The quality was assessed by the Working Group members during a 2-day meeting and the data were analysed, especially with respect to any change in the level and/or text of any of the conclusions or recommendations of the initial guidelines. In the end, all relevant references published until January 1, 2013 were included. The final text was approved by all Working Group members. Results For the following topics, the conclusions and/or recommendations have been changed: indications for treatment, treatment of inguinal hernia, day surgery, antibiotic prophylaxis, training, postoperative pain control and chronic pain. The addendum contains all current level 1 conclusions, Grade A recommendations and new Grade B recommendations based on new level 1 evidence (with the changes in bold). Conclusions Despite the fact that the Working Group responsible for it tried to represent most kinds of surgeons treating inguinal hernias, such general guidelines inevitably must be fitted to the daily practice of every individual surgeon treating his/her patients. There is no doubt that the future of guideline implementation will strongly depend on the development of easy to use decision support algorithms tailored to the individual patient and on evaluating the effect of guideline implementation on surgical outcome. At the 35th International Congress of the EHS in Gdansk, Poland (May 12–15, 2013), it was decided that the EHS, IEHS and EAES will collaborate from now on with the final goal to publish new joint guidelines, most likely in 2015.

BackgroundCurrent recommendations for hernia treatment suggest applying techniques aimed at reducing postoperative pain in patients experiencing intense preoperative pain. However, there is still no reliable stratification method of preoperative pain, its circumstances, intensity and frequency, and the current assessments of hernia symptoms are performed by means of a subjective evaluation. The aim of this work is to discuss preoperative pain before hernia repair and determine its nature depending on the type and length of hernia persistence and the patient’s age.Materials and methodsThe data from 1647 patients before inguinal hernia repairs (2010–2017) were registered prospectively in the National Hernia Repair Register (demographic data, pain score and influence on everyday activities).ResultsThe most common symptom upon admission was pain (949 patients at rest; 57.6% and 1561 at physical activity; 94.8%). A significant influence of hernia persistence on the pain occurrence and intensity was not observed between patients with hernia < 12-months (60.8%;VAS5.0) and > 5-years (58.3%;VAS5.4) (p = 0.068). The occurrence and intensity of pain was significantly higher patients < 40-years (63.7%;VAS5.4) than patients > 60-years (54.3%;VAS4.8) (p = 0.008).ConclusionsWhile pain at rest is not a significant problem, undertaking physical activities may intensify pain and increase the number of patients suffering from it. Preoperative assessment of pain may help determine the group of younger patients who could benefit the most from inguinal hernia repair. New indications for prompter admission for treatment should be planned in future studies of patients showing pain at rest for possible prevention of postoperative neuropathy.

Background Although the repair of ventral abdominal wall hernias is one of the most commonly performed operations, many aspects of their treatment are still under debate or poorly studied. In addition, there is a lack of good definitions and classifications that make the evaluation of studies and meta-analyses in this field of surgery difficult. Materials and methods Under the auspices of the board of the European Hernia Society and following the previously published classifications on inguinal and on ventral hernias, a working group was formed to create an online platform for registration and outcome measurement of operations for ventral abdominal wall hernias. Development of such a registry involved reaching agreement about clear definitions and classifications on patient variables, surgical procedures and mesh materials used, as well as outcome parameters. The EuraHS working group (European registry for abdominal wall hernias) comprised of a multinational European expert panel with specific interest in abdominal wall hernias. Over five working group meetings, consensus was reached on definitions for the data to be recorded in the registry. Results A set of well-described definitions was made. The previously reported EHS classifications of hernias will be used. Risk factors for recurrences and co-morbidities of patients were listed. A new severity of comorbidity score was defined. Post-operative complications were classified according to existing classifications as described for other fields of surgery. A new 3-dimensional numerical quality-of-life score, EuraHS-QoL score, was defined. An online platform is created based on the definitions and classifications, which can be used by individual surgeons, surgical teams or for multicentre studies. A EuraHS website is constructed with easy access to all the definitions, classifications and results from the database. Conclusion An online platform for registration and outcome measurement of abdominal wall hernia repairs with clear definitions and classifications is offered to the surgical community. It is hoped that this registry could lead to better evidence-based guidelines for treatment of abdominal wall hernias based on hernia variables, patient variables, available hernia repair materials and techniques.