Characterizing laparoscopic incisional hernia repair

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic repair of ventral and incisional hernias (LVIHRs) is feasible; however, many facets of this procedure remain poorly defined. The indications, essential technical features and postoperative management should be standardized to optimize outcomes and facilitate training in this promising approach to incisional hernia repair. METHODS: All patients referred to one surgeon at a tertiary care centre for LVIHR from 1999 to 2004 were analyzed. Patient records were analyzed and perioperative outcomes were documented. RESULTS: Of the 69 patients who were referred for management of incisional hernia, 64 underwent LVIHR. The mean age of patients selected for surgery was 61.4 years (28% of patients over age 70 years); their mean body mass index (BMI) was 32.8 kg/m2 and mean American Association of Anaesthetists (ASA) score was 2.5 (52% of patients had an ASA score equal to 3). The mean operating time was 130.7 minutes for a mean abdominal wall defect of 123.9 cm2 and a mean prosthetic mesh size of 344 cm2. Patients with recurrent incisional hernias and previous prosthetic mesh were the most challenging, with a mean BMI of 39 kg/m2, mean operating time of 191 minutes, mean defect of 224 cm2 and mean prosthetic mesh size of 508 cm2. One patient was converted to open surgery and, in 2 patients, small bowel injuries were repaired laparoscopically without adverse sequelae. The mean length of stay was 4.5 days (median 3.0 d). Postoperatively, 78% of patients developed seromas within the residual hernia sac. All seromas were managed nonoperatively; one-half resolved by 7 weeks, and larger seromas persisted for up to 24 weeks. There was an 18.7% rate of minor complications and a 3.1% rate of major complications (no deaths). After a mean follow-up of 7.7 months, 2 recurrent hernias (3.1%) were identified in patients with multiple previous open mesh repairs. CONCLUSION: Although LVIHR may be challenging, it has the potential to be considered a primary approach for most ventral and incisional hernias, regardless of patient status or hernia complexity.     

Mesh repair of incisional hernia: comparison of laparoscopic and open repair.

OBJECTIVE: To compare our results of open and laparoscopic mesh repair of incisional hernias. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Teaching hospitals, The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: All patients who had had a laparoscopic (n = 25) or an open (n = 76) mesh repair of incisional hernia between January 1996 and January 2000. INTERVENTIONS: Physical examination at the time of the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Morbidity and recurrence. RESULTS: The groups were comparable. 11 patients (14%) developed postoperative infections after open repair and 1 (4%) after laparoscopic repair (p = 0.29). Median hospital stay was 5 days (range 1-19) in the open group and 4 (range 1-11) in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.28). The 2-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 18% after open repair (median follow-up of 17 months (range 1-46) and 15% after laparoscopic repair (median follow-up of 15 months, range 1-44). Recurrences in the laparoscopic group were all among the first 7 cases in which the mesh was fixed with staples alone. CONCLUSION: There were fewer infections and hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group, but not significantly so. Recurrence rates were comparable.     

Results of laparoscopic versus open abdominal and incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication of abdominal surgery. The object of this study was to confirm the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of laparoscopic treatment of abdominal wall defects. METHODS: Fifty consecutive laparoscopic abdominal and incisional hernia repairs from September 2001 to May 2003 were compared with 50 open anterior repairs. RESULTS: The 2 groups were not different for age, body mass index, or American Society of Anaesthesiologists scores. Mean operative time was 59 minutes for the laparoscopic group, 164.5 minutes for the open group. Mean hernia diameter was 10.6 cm for the laparoscopic group, 10.5 cm for the open group. Mean length of stay was 2.1 days for the laparoscopic group, 8.1 days for the open group. Complications occurred in 16% of the laparoscopic and 50% of open group. Median follow-up was 9.0 months for the laparoscopic group, 24.5 months for the open group. Recurrence rates were 2% for laparoscopic group and 0% for the open group. CONCLUSION: Results for laparoscopic abdominal and incisional hernia repair seem to be superior to results for open repair in terms of operative time, length of stay, wound infection, major complications, and overall hospital reimbursement.     

腹腔镜与开放式巨大腹壁切口疝补片修补术的对比分析

目的:比较开放手术及腹腔镜补片修补巨大腹壁切口疝的手术效果。方法:回顾分析我院2003年1月至2007年6月收治的43例巨大腹壁切口疝患者的临床资料。根据手术方式分为腹腔镜组(16例)和开放组(27例),对两组手术时间、术后并发症、术后住院时间等进行对比分析。结果:两组手术时间、术后并发症发生率无明显差异。开放手术组2例发生切口感染,1例经冲洗引流2个月治愈,另1例再次手术取出补片。腹腔镜手术组术后住院时间和手术出血量明显少于开放手术组。术后随访4~48个月,平均21个月,两组均无复发病例。结论:腹腔镜下应用补片修补巨大腹壁切口疝同样安全、合理,且具有患者创伤小、康复快和术后住院时间短等优点。     

Open randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair

Background  Incisional hernia is a common complication following abdominal surgery. Although the use of prosthetics has decreased recurrence rates, the standard open approach is still unsatisfactory. Laparoscopic techniques are an attempt to provide similar outcomes with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Methods  Open randomized controlled clinical trial with follow-up at 1, 2, 3, 7, and 15 days, and 1, 3, and 12 months from hernia repair. The study was carried out in the surgery departments of three general hospitals of the Valencia Health Agency. Objectives  To compare laparoscopic with anterior open repair using health-related quality of life outcomes as main endpoints. Results  Eighty-four patients with incisional hernia were randomly allocated to an open group (OG) (n = 39) or to a laparoscopic group (LG) (n = 45). Seventy-four patients completed 1-year follow up. Mean length of stay and time to oral intake were similar between groups. Operative time was 32 min longer in the LG (p < 0.001). Conversion rate was 11%. The local complication rate was superior in the LG (33.3% versus 5.2%) (p < 0.001). Recurrence rate at 1 year (7.9% versus 9.7%) was similar in the two groups. There were no significant differences in the pain scores or the EQ5D tariffs between the two groups during follow-up. Conclusions  Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair does not seem to be a better procedure than the open anterior technique in terms of operative time, hospitalization, complications, pain or quality of life.     

��ǻ���¸����п����޲���41����Ч����

目的评价腹腔镜下腹壁切口疝修补术的长、短期疗效。方法回顾性分析2006年3月至2011年7月苏州大学附属第二医院普外科41例行腹腔镜下腹壁切口疝修补术的临床资料。结果 41例切口疝均在腹腔镜下完成修补,手术时间45～150min,平均60min,术后住院时间3～16d,平均6d,术后随访2～65个月,平均25.6个月。发生血清肿4例,术后疼痛8例(术后3～6周缓解),补片感染1例,复发2例。结论腹腔镜腹壁切口疝修补术具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少及复发率低等优点,是一种安全有效的手术方式。     

Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair

Background Incisional hernia is a common complication of abdominal surgery, and it is often a source of morbidity and high costs for health care. This is a case-control study to compare laparoscopic versus anterior-open incisional hernia repair. Methods 170 patients with incisional hernia were enrolled in this study between September 2001 and December 2004. Of these, 85 underwent anterior-open repair (open group: OG), and 85 underwent laparoscopic repair (laparoscopic group: LG). The clinical outcome was determined by a median follow-up of 24.0 months for LG and OG. Results No difference was noticed between the two groups in age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), and incisional hernia diameter. Mean operative time was 61.0 min for LG patients and 150.9 min for OG patients (p < .05). Mean hospitalization was 2.7 days for LG patients and 9.9 days for OG patients (p < .05). Mean return to work was 13 days (range, 6–15 days) in LG patients and 25 days (range, 16–30 days) in OG patients. Complications occurred in 16.4 % of LG patients and 29.4 % of OG patients, with a relapse rate of 2.3% in LG and 1.1% in OG patients. Conclusions Short-term results indicate that laparoscopic incisional hernia repair is associated with a shorter operative time and hospitalization, a faster return to work, and a lower incidence of wound infections and major complications compared to the anterior-open procedure. Further studies and longer follow-up are required to confirm these findings.     

Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair

BACKGROUND: To analyze hospital resource utilization for laparoscopic vs open incisional hernia repair including the postoperative period. METHODS: Prospectively collected administrative data for incisional hernia repairs were examined. A total of 884 incisional hernia repairs were examined for trends in type of approach over time. Starting October 2001, detailed records were available, and examined for operating room (OR) time, cost data, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day postoperative hospital encounters. RESULTS: Of the total, 469 incisional hernias were approached laparoscopically (53%) and 415 open (47%). Laparoscopic repair had shorter LOS (1 +/- 0.2 days vs 2 +/- 0.6 days), longer OR time (149 +/- 4 min vs 89 +/- 4 min), higher supply costs (2,237 dollars +/- 71 dollars vs 664 dollars +/- 113 dollars), slightly lower total hospital cost (6,396 dollars +/- 477 dollars vs 7,197 dollars +/- 1,819 dollars), and slightly more postoperative hospital encounters (15% vs 13%). Use of laparoscopy increased over time (37% in 2000 vs 68% in 2004). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair is becoming increasingly popular, and not at increased cost to the health care system.     

Postoperative complications after laparoscopic incisional hernia repair. Incidence and treatment

Background: The popularity of laparoscopic repair of incisional hernias is increasing due to the apparent advantages of laparoscopy. Patients and methods: A group of 150 consecutive patients with incisional hernias were treated by laparoscopic IPOM technique with a Goretex Dualmesh between September 1999 and September 2001 and subsequently followed up. Some minor and major complications could clearly identify advantages as well as drawbacks of the technique. Results: No primary mesh infection were observed but 4 recurrences, 3 of them due to technical mistakes, and 1 case with ileus due to a volvolus at day 4 p.o. were recorded. Further major complications included 2 early and 2 later stage trocar hernias, which needed surgical correction. Two patients developed secondary bowel perforation after thermal injury and after primary enterotomy which was closed by laparotomy. Conclusions: All complications, except one recurrence due to failure of the material, were surgical mistakes and cannot be attributed to the laparoscopic procedure. Consequently, after taking into account the surgical mistakes and possible technical errors, the low recurrence rate justifies further application of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.     

开放式手术与腹腔镜手术治疗腹壁切口疝的对比研究

目的对比观察腹腔镜腹壁切口疝修补术与开放式切口疝修补术的疗效,以供临床参考。 方法总结2011年8月至2014年1月本院外科收治的52例腹壁切口疝患者临床资料,其中腹腔镜手术组28例,开放手术组24例。观察两组患者手术时间、住院时间、术中出血量、术区感染、术后疼痛的差异。 结果两组患者均顺利完成手术,与腹腔镜手术组对比,开放手术组在手术时间[(56.43±21.23) min vs (78.12±18.15) min, t=3.924, P<0.01]、住院时间[(5.12±1.18) d vs (7.25±2.45) d, t=4.085, P<0.01]、术中出血[(12.67±8.87) ml vs (135.18±56.78) ml, t=-6.927, P<0.01]、术后感染及疼痛等方面差异有统计学意义。 结论腹腔镜及开放式两种手术方式同样安全有效,腹腔镜手术在缩短住院时间,减少术中出血、术后疼痛方面占有明显优势。     

Short- and mid-term outcome after laparoscopic repair of large incisional hernia

Purpose

To compare the outcome after laparoscopic incisional and ventral herniorrhaphy (LIVH) for fascial defect larger or equal than 15 cm in width with the outcome after LIVH in patients with hernia defect smaller than 15 cm.

Methods

From 2003 through 2010, 350 patients were submitted to LIVH. In 70 cases, hernia defect was ≥15 cm in width and in 280 was <15 cm. Incisional hernias were often recurrent, double or multiorificial. In the group of larger hernias, the rate of obesity, recurrent hernia and multiorificial hernia was 27.1, 24.2 and 12.8 %, respectively, and in the group of smaller hernias 27.3, 16.1 and 2.8 %, respectively. Patients were interviewed using McGill pain score test to measure postoperative quality of life (QoL) in the mid-term.

Results

LIVH for hernia ≥15 cm required longer surgical time (p = 0.034) and postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.0001). Besides, there were higher rate of postoperative prolonged ileus (p = 0.035) and polmonitis (p = 0.001). Overall recurrence rate was 2.6, 8.6 % for larger and 1.1 % for smaller incisional hernias, p = 0.045. Mc Gill pain test revealed no significant difference in the two groups of patients in postoperative QoL within 36 months.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic approach seems safe and effective even to repair large incisional hernia, the rate of recurrence was higher, but acceptable, if compared to smaller hernias. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest reported series of incisional hernias ≥15 cm managed by laparoscopy.     

Feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair after liver transplantation

Background

Incisional hernia is a frequent problem after liver transplantation. It is related to immunosuppression, use of steroids, obesity, as well as the type of incision. Laparoscopic repair shows a lower rate of complications in terms of infection and recurrence, as well as reduced postoperative pain and faster recovery.

Methods

We reviewed our experience with laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LIHR) in patients after liver transplantation, using the BARD Composix mesh which is composed of two layers of polypropylene and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and fixed with metal ProTack.

Results

Between March 2002 and April 2010, we performed 20 LIHR in 17 male and three female subjects of overall mean age of 58.3 years, and body mass Index of 31.05 kg/m². The mean size of the defects was 215.25 cm². All patients had undergone bilateral subcostal incisions with a midline extension, and seven had additional operations after the transplantation for various reasons. There were no differences in immunosuppression. Three patients had needed steroid boluses for acute graft rejection episodes. There was no conversion of therapy. The size of mesh was 18 × 23 cm in seven cases and 20 × 25 in 12 cases. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 2.1 days. Oral feeding was initiated a few hours after surgery, and routine immunosuppression was not discontinued. There were no major early complications. During follow-up, we identified one patient with a mesh infection (5%) and one with a recurrence (5%).

Conclusion

LIHR is safe and feasible even for major hernias after liver transplantation with few complications.     

Metabolic responses after laparoscopic or open hernia repair

Background: The purpose of a prospective randomized study was to compare the surgical trauma in patients undergoing laparoscopic or open hernia repair. Methods: Postoperative pain, analgesic consumption, and metabolic response to surgery were assessed in 30 patients undergoing laparoscopic (group 1; n=15) or open (group II; n=15; Shouldice repair) unilateral inguinal hernia repair. Both groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, and type and size of inguinal hernia. Results: Postoperative visual analogue scales (VAS) for pain were reduced on mobilization for patients of group I with a significant difference (P=0.02) on the operative day, whereas pain scores at rest and analgesic requirements were similar for both groups. No differences between groups I and II were found in postoperative levels of interleukin-1, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, Creactive protein, fibrinogen, transferrin, alpha-1-antitrypsin, and white blood cells. Postoperative polymorphonuclear (PMN) elastase concentrations remained within normal range in group II but showed a significant increase in patients operated laparoscopically for postoperative days 1 and 2. Conclusions: No major surgical trauma was found after herniorraphy compared to open hernia repair.     

腹腔镜切口疝修补手术流程

<正>【内容简介】随着腹部手术量逐年增加,手术切口愈合不良导致的术后切口疝、造口疝也明显增多。相对于原发腹股沟疝甚至复发疝,腹壁疝手术难度都较高。随着腹腔镜技术的发展,疝和腹壁外科在腹腔镜方面也有了较广泛的应用。在腹壁疝治疗中,腹腔镜技术成为许多临床医师的首选术式。理论上可以接受全麻开放修补手术的     

腹腔镜切口疝修补术32例

目的 总结腹壁切口疝的病因、手术方式,预防切口疝并发症的发生。方法 回顾性分析2012年1月至2013年12月,河北省赤城县人民医院收治的腹壁切口疝患者32例,对病因、手术方式、手术时间等临床资料进行分析和总结。结果 32例患者均顺利完成手术,手术时间45—220min,平均（115±9）min;术后住院4～15d,平均（7±1）d。补片感染6例,局部换药1个月未愈,后经取出补片后治愈。血清肿6例,经局部穿刺抽液后治愈。膨出2例,因腹部不适症状明显而再次行腹腔镜切口疝修补术（LVHR）,术后随访16个月,无再次膨出。腹壁钉合区域疼痛9例,均予止痛药治疗,3—6周后基本缓解。术后随访2～36个月,无复发。结论 LVHR具有手术时间短、恢复快、术后并发症少、复发率低等优势。随着腹腔镜技术的普及,LVHR将会为更多患者所接受。     

Mesh erosion following laparoscopic incisional hernia repair

Laparascopic mesh repair is a safe and effective method of surgically treating incisional hernia. However, such an approach may lead to specific complications of both laparoscopy and mesh placement. The mesh may migrate, become infected or erode into adjacent structures. We describe the case of a woman who underwent laparoscopic incisional hernia repair with subsequent erosion of the mesh into the bladder.     

Comparing quality-of-life outcomes in symptomatic patients undergoing laparoscopic or open ventral hernia repair

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare quality-of-life outcomes in patients with symptomatic hernias who were undergoing laparoscopic and open repairs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data for patients undergoing ventral hernia repair were reviewed with quality-of-life surveys administered before and at least 6 months following surgery. RESULTS: The study included 56 symptomatic patients. Forty-one patients (73%) underwent laparoscopic repair, and 15 patients (27%) underwent open repair. There was no difference in preoperative quality-of-life scores on the SF-36 Health Survey between patients having laparoscopic or open repairs. Postoperative quality-of-life scores on the SF-36 survey were significantly improved in the laparoscopic group, compared with the open group, in general health (46% vs. 37%; P=0.0217), vitality (53% vs. 45%; P=0.0491), role-emotional (45% vs. 35%; P=0.0480), and mental health (49% vs. 39%; P=0.0381). Postoperative quality-of-life scores on the Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) were significantly improved in the laparoscopic group, compared with the open group, in bending over (3.15 vs. 5.87, P=0.0158), sitting up (2.51 vs. 5.13; P=0.0211), activities of daily living (2.48 vs. 5.75; P=0.0139), coughing or deep breathing (2.95 vs. 5.75; P=0.0314), walking (2.36 vs. 4.62; P=0.0427), exercising (3.19 vs. 6.14; P=0.0222), and total comfort scale (17.62 vs. 40.23; P=0.0084). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair provides improved quality-of-life, compared with open repair, 6 months postoperatively. Nearly all physical variables measured by the CCS were significantly better when ventral hernias were repaired laparoscopically.     

Pseudo-recurrence following laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair

Purpose  

Laparoscopic mesh repair is an established alternative to the open repair of herniae of the antero-lateral abdominal wall. However, a definition in the literature of “recurrence” is lacking. This study reviews the phenomenon of pseudo-recurrence in patients who describe recurrent symptoms despite an apparently successful laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair (LVIHR).