Is mesh pore size in polypropylene meshes associated with the outcome in Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair: a registry-based analysis of 22,141 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Experimental data show that large-pored meshes reduce foreign body reaction, inflammation and scar bridging and thus improve mesh integration. However, clinical data on the effect of mesh porosity on the outcome of hernioplasty are limited. This study investigated the relation of pore size in polypropylene meshes to the outcome of Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty using data from the Herniamed registry. METHODS: This analysis of data from the Herniamed registry evaluated perioperative and 1-year follow-up outcomes in patients undergoing elective, primary, unilateral Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair using polypropylene meshes. Patients operated with a non-polypropylene mesh or a polypropylene mesh with absorbable components were excluded. Polypropylene meshes with a pore size of 1.0 × 1.0 mm or less were defined as small-pored meshes, while a pore size of more than 1.0 × 1.0 mm was considered large-pored. Unadjusted analyses and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate the relation of pore size of polypropylene meshes, patient and surgical characteristics to the outcome parameters. RESULTS: Data from 22,141 patients were analyzed, of which 6853 (31%) were operated on with a small-pore polypropylene mesh and 15,288 (69%) with a large-pore polypropylene mesh. No association of mesh pore size with intraoperative, general or postoperative complications, recurrence rate or pain requiring treatment was found at 1-year follow-up. A lower risk of complication-related reoperation tended to be associated with small-pore size (p = 0.086). Furthermore, small-pore mesh repair was associated with a lower risk of pain at rest and pain on exertion at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The present study could not demonstrate an advantage of large-pore polypropylene meshes for the outcome of Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty.

Outcome of inguinal hernia repair after previous radical prostatectomy: a registry-based analysis with 12,465 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Following radical prostatectomy, the rate of inguinal hernias is fourfold higher compared to controls. Laparo-endoscopic repair after previous radical prostatectomy is considered complex. Therefore, the guidelines recommend open Lichtenstein repair. To date, there are limited data on inguinal hernia repair after prior prostatectomy. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis from the Herniamed Registry, the outcomes of 255,182 primary elective unilateral inguinal hernia repairs were compared with those of 12,465 patients with previous radical prostatectomy in relation to the surgical technique. Furthermore, the outcomes of laparo-endoscopic versus open Lichtenstein repair techniques in the 12,465 patients after previous radical prostatectomy were directly compared. RESULTS: Comparison of the perioperative complication rates for primary elective unilateral inguinal hernia repair with and without previous radical prostatectomy demonstrated for the laparo-endoscopic techniques significantly higher intraoperative complications (2.1% vs 0.9%; p < 0.001), postoperative complications (3.2% vs 1.9%; p < 0.001) and complication-related reoperations (1.1% vs 0.7%; p = 0.0442) to the disadvantage of previous prostatectomy. No significant differences were identified for Lichtenstein repair. Direct comparison of the laparo-endoscopic with the open Lichtenstein technique for inguinal hernia repair after previous radical prostatectomy revealed significantly more intraoperative complications for TEP and TAPP (2.1% vs 0.6%; p < 0.001), but more postoperative complications (4.8% vs 3.2%; p < 0.001) and complication-related reoperations (1.8% vs 1.1%; p = 0.003) for open Lichtenstein repair. CONCLUSION: Since there are no clear advantages for the laparo-endoscopic vs the open Lichtenstein technique in inguinal hernia repair after previous radical prostatectomy, the surgeon can opt for one or the other technique in accordance with their experience.

A significant vascular variant in oncologic pancreaticoduodenectomy: the arc of Buhler.

BACKGROUND: The arc of Buhler (AOB), a rare anastomosis connecting the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) to the celiac trunk (CA), was found in a patient suffering from an adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head. CASE PRESENTATION: Oncologic pancreaticoduodenectomy required resection of the AOB to achieve complete tumor removal. After an uneventful clinical course in the first days, the patient suffered a severe complication. Due to ischemia of the stomach and spleen, complete resection of the stomach, spleen, and remaining pancreas had to be performed. CONCLUSIONS: The hemodynamic impact of this arterial variant has been discussed mainly for liver perfusion, which remained intact at all times in our case. Because of the serious obstacles mentioned above, we strongly recommend that the presence of AOB be considered in preoperative diagnosis and preservation when possible. If the AOB is likely to be ligated, stenosis of the SMA or CA should be excluded and resolved before surgery.

External Negative Pressure Drainage of the Pancreatic Duct in Pancreatogastrostomy Following Pylorus-Preserving Pancreaticoduodenectomy-Feasibility and Technique.

Background: Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is a major cause of morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy. There is no consensus on the best technique to protect the pancreato-enteric anastomosis and reduce the rate of POPF. This study investigated the feasibility and efficiency of external suction drainage of the pancreatic duct to improve the healing of pancreaticogastrostomy. Methods: Between July 2019 and June 2021, 21 consecutive patients undergoing elective pancreaticoduodenectomy were included. In all patients we performed a pancreaticogastrostomy and inserted a negative pressure drainage into the pancreatic duct. The length and diameter of the pancreatic duct were measured and the texture of the pancreas was evaluated. The daily secretion volume and the lipase value via pancreatic duct drainage were documented. The occurrence of POPF was evaluated. Results: None of the patients had drainage-related complications. In 4 patients we registered a dislocation of the drainage from the pancreas duct into the stomach. 17/21 Patients showed no signs of POPF. A biochemical leak was measured in one patient. Furthermore, 2 patients had a POPF grade B. In one patient, POPF grade C required reoperation and resection of the remnant pancreas. All 4 cases of POPF met the risk criteria soft pancreas, high volume and high lipase value in the duct drainage. Conclusion: The insertion of the pancreatic duct drainage was feasible and caused no drainage-related morbidity. POPF-rate was moderate in the risk population of soft pancreas and small duct.