Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Introduction Abdominal wall hernias are a frequent cause of abdominal pain-related emergency department visits. Our study aimed to establish the connection between lactate levels and patient outcomes in those with abdominal pain due to abdominal wall hernias. Materials and methods Our research followed a retrospective, observational, and descriptive approach and two center. We included patients who visited the emergency department for abdominal pain and were confirmed to have abdominal wall hernias through ultrasound. Results We enrolled 493 patients meeting the criteria. Median age was 65 years, with 54% ( n  = 266) being male. Regarding outcomes, 40.5% ( n  = 200) were hospitalized, 27.7% ( n  = 137) underwent surgery, and 7.9% ( n  = 39) underwent bowel resection. Mortality rate during hernia-related hospital admission was 0.6% ( n  = 3). For hospitalized patients, there were significant differences in white blood cell count, neutrophil count and percentage, platelet count, lymphocyte count, and percentage ( p  < 0.05). Patients undergoing resection showed significant differences in neutrophil count, neutrophil percentage, lymphocyte count, and lymphocyte percentage ( p  < 0.05). Lactate levels were statistically significant in all patient groups requiring hospitalization, surgery, and resection ( p  < 0.05). Sensitivity and specificity of lactate test results indicated in patients undergoing bowel resection, lactate values ≥1.96 mmol/L had a specificity of 64%, sensitivity of 71%, and a negative predictive value of 96% ( p  < 0.05). Conclusion Low lactate levels in patients presenting to the emergency department with abdominal pain caused by abdominal wall hernias have a high negative predictive value for excluding strangulation and the need for bowel resection. Therefore, we recommend the use of lactate as an additional diagnostic tool in emergency department presentations related to abdominal wall hernias.

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.

Background Physical exercise prehabilitation has been proposed to improve postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of preoperative exercise training compared with standard care on postoperative outcomes in major abdominal surgery. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing prehabilitation with standard care were identified by a systematic literature search of MEDLINE and CENTRAL. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of perioperative outcome data were conducted. Meta-analyses were performed wherever possible and meaningful. Results A total of eight trials including 442 patients met the inclusion criteria. These trials investigated the effect of prehabilitation in patient cohorts undergoing major liver, colorectal, gastroesophageal, and general abdominal surgery. Quantitative analyses of all included trials showed a significant reduction in postoperative pulmonary complications (OR 0.37; 0.20 to 0.67; p  = 0.001) as well as in postoperative overall morbidity (OR 0.52; 0.30 to 0.88; p  = 0.01) in the prehabilitation group compared with standard care. The length of hospital stay showed no significant differences between the groups (MD − 0.58; − 1.28 to 0.13; p  = 0.11). Risk of bias and methodological quality varied substantially among the trials, most of which were small single-center studies. Conclusion Prehabilitation including a physical exercise intervention may lead to a reduction of postoperative pulmonary complications as well as less overall morbidity compared with standard care in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Further, well-designed RCT are needed to evaluate these potential positive effects in more detail and to identify suitable target populations. Protocol Registration PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017080366

BackgroundThe eTEP Rives-Stoppa (RS) procedure, increasingly used for ventral hernia repair, has raised concerns about postoperative upper abdominal bulging. This study aims to objectively evaluate changes in the abdominal contour after eTEP RS and explore potential causes using a novel analytical tool, the Ellipse 9.MethodsThirty patients undergoing eTEP RS without posterior rectus sheath closure were assessed before and 3 months after surgery using CT scan images. Key measurements analyzed included the distance between linea semilunaris (X2), eccentricity over the Cord (c/a Cord), superior eccentricity (c/a Sup), Y2, and the superior perimeter of the abdomen. The Ellipse 9 tool, which provides graphical images and numerical representations, was utilized alongside patient-reported outcomes to assess perceived abdominal changes.ResultsThe study group exhibited a trend toward a flatter abdomen with reduced distance between linea semilunaris(X2). However, 17% of patients developed upper abdominal bulging (5). Significant differences in c/a Cord, c/a Sup, Y2, and the superior perimeter of the abdomen, confirmed with Bonferroni corrections, were noted between bulging (5 patients) and non-bulging groups (25 patients). There was a notable disparity between patient perceptions and objective outcomes.ConclusionThe eTEP RS procedure improved abdominal contour in most patients from a selected cohort. The Ellipse 9 tool was valuable for the objective analysis of these changes. The cause of bulging post-eTEP RS is probably multifactorial. Notably, there was often a discrepancy between patient perceptions of bulging and objective clinical findings.