Explore the vast range of titles available.

A randomized, multicenter trial that compared endovascular repair with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm showed no significant difference between these approaches in overall survival after 8 years.

Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm This clinical trial compared endovascular with open repair of unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. An early survival advantage with endovascular repair was not sustained after 3 years. Aneurysm rupture remains a concern with this type of repair. Each year, 40,000 patients in the United States undergo elective procedures to repair abdominal aortic aneurysms. 1 These procedures result in about 1250 perioperative deaths — more than for any other general or vascular surgical procedure, with the exception of colectomy. 2 Endovascular repair was introduced in the 1990s as a less invasive method than traditional open repair. Randomized trials have shown that endovascular repair reduces perioperative mortality, 3 – 5 but in the United Kingdom Endovascular Aneurysm Repair 1 (EVAR 1) trial 3 and the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial, 4 this advantage was lost within 2 years owing to excess late deaths . . .

Short-term survival benefits of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms have been shown in randomised trials, but this early survival benefit is lost after a few years. We investigated whether EVAR had a long-term survival benefit compared with open repair. We used data from the EVAR randomised controlled trial (EVAR trial 1), which enrolled 1252 patients from 37 centres in the UK between Sept 1, 1999, and Aug 31, 2004. Patients had to be aged 60 years or older, have aneurysms of at least 5·5 cm in diameter, and deemed suitable and fit for either EVAR or open repair. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using computer-generated sequences of randomly permuted blocks stratified by centre to receive either EVAR (n=626) or open repair (n=626). Patients and treating clinicians were aware of group assignments, no masking was used. The primary analysis compared total and aneurysm-related deaths in groups until mid-2015 in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ISRCTN (ISRCTN55703451). We recruited 1252 patients between Sept 1, 1999, and Aug 31, 2004. 25 patients (four for mortality outcome) were lost to follow-up by June 30, 2015. Over a mean of 12·7 years (SD 1·5; maximum 15·8 years) of follow-up, we recorded 9·3 deaths per 100 person-years in the EVAR group and 8·9 deaths per 100 person-years in the open-repair group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·11, 95% CI 0·97–1·27, p=0·14). At 0–6 months after randomisation, patients in the EVAR group had a lower mortality (adjusted HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·37–1·02 for total mortality; and 0·47, 0·23–0·93 for aneurysm-related mortality, p=0·031), but beyond 8 years of follow-up open-repair had a significantly lower mortality (adjusted HR 1·25, 95% CI 1·00–1·56, p=0·048 for total mortality; and 5·82, 1·64–20·65, p=0·0064 for aneurysm-related mortality). The increased aneurysm-related mortality in the EVAR group after 8 years was mainly attributable to secondary aneurysm sac rupture (13 deaths [7%] in EVAR vs two [1%] in open repair), with increased cancer mortality also observed in the EVAR group. EVAR has an early survival benefit but an inferior late survival compared with open repair, which needs to be addressed by lifelong surveillance of EVAR and re-intervention if necessary. UK National Institute for Health Research, Camelia Botnar Arterial Research Foundation.

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.

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.

Background The traumatic abdominal wall hernia (TAWH) is strongly associated with blunt abdominal trauma. The importance of the CT scan cannot be underestimated—the diagnosis of TAWH is easy to miss clinically, but simple to spot radiologically. We report a case series of patients managed in a French-level one trauma centre, to contribute our experience in the detection and management of associated injuries, and of the hernia itself. Methods All patients (n = 4238) presenting to a single-level one trauma centre for trauma resuscitation (including systematic full-body computerised tomography) from November 2014 to February 2020 were screened for the presence of TAWH and prospectively added to our database. Particular attention was paid to the late detection of associated intra-abdominal injuries. Finally, the choice of management of the hernia itself was noted. A literature review of all case series and individual case reports until the time of writing was performed and summarised. Results We report 12 cases of TAWH amongst 4238 patients presenting to the trauma resuscitation bay between November 2014 and February 2020. All patients underwent a contrast-enhanced CT immediately after stabilisation. No patients had clinically detected TAWH prior to CT. Intra-abdominal injuries were found in 9 patients (75%), and urgent surgery was required in 7 patients (58.3%). Two (28.5%) of these seven patients had a missed diagnosis of intra-abdominal injury at the time of the index CT scan, although the TAWH had been detected. Based on our literature review, 271 patients across 12 case series were identified. In total, 183 (67;5%) of these patients were reported to have ≥ 1 associated intra-abdominal injuries. In total, 127 (46,8%) patients required an urgent laparotomy for management of these injuries. Five (3.9%) of the patients requiring urgent laparotomy had a missed CT diagnosis of intra-abdominal injury but not of TAWH at the time of the baseline CT. Conclusions TAWH is a rare clinical entity that may alert to more significant, associated trauma lesions. The CT scan is the imaging modality of choice, to both diagnose and classify the hernia and to screen for other injuries. The presence of TAWH must lower the threshold to operatively explore or at least closely monitor these patients, in view of the high rate of false-negative findings at index imaging.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm is the only cardiovascular disease targeted by population screening. In this study, we test the effect of screening and subsequent intervention for abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral arterial disease, and hypertension combined. In this randomised controlled trial, we randomly allocated (1:1) all men aged 65–74 years living in the Central Denmark Region to screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral arterial disease, and hypertension, or to no screening. We based allocation on computer-generated random numbers from 1 to 100 in blocks of 1067 to 4392, stratified by 19 municipalities. Only the non-screening group and the investigator assessing outcomes were masked. We invited participants who were found to have abdominal aortic aneurysm or peripheral arterial disease back for confirmation and eventual initiation of relevant pharmacological therapy. We further offered participants with abdominal aortic aneurysm annual control or surgical repair. We referred participants with suspected hypertension to their general practitioner. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed 5 years after randomisation, analysed in all randomly allocated participants except for those who had incorrect person identification numbers. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00662480. Between Oct 8, 2008, and Jan 11, 2011, we randomly allocated 50 156 participants, with 25 078 (50%) each in the screening and non-screening groups. Four (<1%) participants in the screening group were lost to follow-up. After a median follow-up of 4·4 years (IQR 3·9–4·8), 2566 (10·2%) of 25 074 participants in the screening group and 2715 (10·8%) of 25 078 in the non-screening group had died. This finding resulted in a significant hazard ratio of 0·93 (95% CI 0·88–0·98; p=0·01), an absolute risk reduction of 0·006 (0·001–0·011), and a number needed to invite of 169 (89–1811). Incidences of diabetes (3995 per 100 000 person-years in the screening group vs 4129 per 100 000 person-years in the non-screening group), intracerebral haemorrhage (146 vs 140), renal failure (612 vs 649), cancer (3578 vs 3719), or 30 day mortality after cardiovascular surgery (44·57 vs 39·33) did not differ between groups. The observed reduction of mortality risk from abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral arterial disease, and hypertension has never been seen before in the population screening literature and can be linked primarily to initiation of pharmacological therapy. Health policy makers should consider implementing combined screening whether no screening or isolated abdominal aortic aneurysm screening is currently offered. The 7th European Framework Programme, Central Denmark Region, Viborg Hospital, and the Danish Council for Independent Research.

Objective To assess the three year clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of a strategy of endovascular repair (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) versus open repair for patients with suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting 30 vascular centres (29 in UK, one in Canada), 2009-16.Participants 613 eligible patients (480 men) with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm, of whom 502 underwent emergency repair for rupture.Interventions 316 patients were randomised to an endovascular strategy (275 with confirmed rupture) and 297 to open repair (261 with confirmed rupture).Main outcome measures Mortality, with reinterventions after aneurysm repair, quality of life, and hospital costs to three years as secondary measures.Results The maximum follow-up for mortality was 7.1 years, with two patients in each group lost to follow-up by three years. After similar mortality by 90 days, in the mid-term (three months to three years) there were fewer deaths in the endovascular than the open repair group (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.90), leading to lower mortality at three years (48% v 56%), but by seven years mortality was about 60% in each group (hazard ratio 0.92, 0.75 to 1.13). Results for the 502 patients with repaired ruptures were more pronounced: three year mortality was lower in the endovascular strategy group (42% v 54%; odds ratio 0.62, 0.43 to 0.88), but after seven years there was no clear difference between the groups (hazard ratio 0.86, 0.68 to 1.08). Reintervention rates up to three years were not significantly different between the randomised groups (hazard ratio 1.02, 0.79 to 1.32); the initial rapid rate of reinterventions was followed by a much slower mid-term reintervention rate in both groups. The early higher average quality of life in the endovascular strategy versus open repair group, coupled with the lower mortality at three years, led to a gain in average quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at three years of 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.33). The endovascular strategy group spent fewer days in hospital and had lower average costs of −£2605 (95% confidence interval −£5966 to £702) (about €2813; $3439). The probability that the endovascular strategy is cost effective was >90% at all levels of willingness to pay for a QALY gain.Conclusions At three years, compared with open repair, an endovascular strategy for suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a survival advantage, a gain in QALYs, similar levels of reintervention, and reduced costs, and this strategy was cost effective. These findings support the increasing use of an endovascular strategy, with wider availability of emergency endovascular repair.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791; ClinicalTrials NCT00746122.

Purpose The relevance of the initial observational approach for desmoid tumors (DTs) remains unclear. We investigated a new conservative management treatment for primary abdominal wall DTs. Methods Data were collected from 147 patients between 1993 and 2012. The initial therapeutic approaches were categorized as front-line surgery [surgery group (SG), n  = 41, 28 %] and initial observation or medical treatment [nonsurgery group (NSG), n  = 106, 72 %]. The cumulative incidence of the last strategy modification was estimated using competing risk methods with variable censoring times. Results Of the 147 patients, 143 were female (97 %). In the SG, 27 patients (66 %) required full-thickness abdominal wall mesh repair. In the NSG, 102 patients (96 %) underwent initial observation and four received medical treatment. In the NSG, the 1- and 3-year incidences of changing to medical treatment (no further changes during the follow-up) were 19 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 11–28] and 25 % (95 % CI 17–35), respectively, and the 1- and 3-year incidences of a final switch to surgery were 14 % (95 % CI 8–22) and 16 % (95 % CI 9–24), respectively. An initial tumor size of >7 cm was associated with a higher strategy modification risk ( p  = 0.004). Of the 102 patients initially observed, 29 experienced spontaneous regression over a median follow-up period of 32 months. All second-intent resections were macroscopically completed, with R0 resections achieved in 82 % of patients. Conclusions This study supports an initial nonsurgical approach to abdominal wall DTs ≤7 cm, followed by surgery based on tumor growth in select cases.

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.