Leaning in and moving forward: a call to action and review of diversity initiatives in SAGES.

BACKGROUND: Diversity, equity, and inclusion have been an intentional focus for SAGES well before the COVID-19 pandemic and the coincident societal recognition of social injustices and racism. Longstanding inequities within our society, healthcare, and the surgery profession have come to light in the aftermath of events that rose to attention around the time of Covid. In so doing, they have brought into focus disparities, injustices, and inequalities that have long been present in the field of surgery, selectively affecting the most vulnerable. METHODS: This White paper examines the current state of diversity within the field of surgery and SAGES (Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons) approach and effort to pave the way forward to meaningful change. We delineate the imperative for diversity, equity, and inclusion for all. By all, we mean to be inclusive of the diversity of gender and sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, geography, sex, and disability in the field of surgery. RESULTS: SAGES is an organization that lives at the intersection of education and innovation. It has a vital role in assisting the surgical profession in addressing these issues and needs and being a force alongside others for sustained and necessary change. SAGES can only realize these goals through a commitment across all aspects of the organization to embed diversity, equity, and inclusion into our very fabric. CONCLUSION: True diversity, equity, and inclusion within a surgical organization is vital for its longevity, growth, relevance, and impact. Unfortunately, the absence of DEI limits opportunity, robs the organization of collective intelligence in an environment in which its presence is critical, contributes to health inequities, and impoverishes all within the society and its value to all with whom it interfaces. SAGES is an organization that lives at the intersection of education and innovation. It has a vital role in assisting the surgical profession in addressing these issues and needs and being a force alongside others for sustained and necessary change. SAGES can only realize these goals through a commitment across all aspects of the organization to embed diversity, equity, and inclusion into our very fabric. Strategies like those highlighted in this White Paper, may be within our grasp and we can learn yet more if we remain in a place of humility and teachability in the future.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)): Part B.

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. METHODS: For 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. RESULTS: Due 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 still 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. CONCLUSION: Guidelines 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 initially guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

Correction to: Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.

This article was updated to include the middle initial of author L. N. Jorgensen's name.

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))-Part A.

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. METHODS: For 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. RESULTS: Due 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. CONCLUSION: Guidelines 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.

Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)-part 1.

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.

Open Rives-Stoppa ventral hernia repair made simple and successful but not for everyone.

BACKGROUND: The Rives-Stoppa (RS) repair of ventral incisional hernias (VIHR) is technically difficult. It involves the retromuscular placement of mesh anterior to the posterior fascia and the primary closure of the anterior fascia. Recurrence rates are 0-8%. We proposed that the operation could be done with equal success by placing the mesh in an intraperitoneal position and primarily closing the fascia anterior to the mesh. METHODS: 81 patients who had undergone an open RS-VIHR with intraperitoneal mesh were evaluated for hernia recurrence and factors associated with recurrence. RESULTS: 55 women and 26 men (mean BMI 38+/-9) underwent RS-VIHR (mean age 49+/-11 years). Of these patients, 44 (54%) had a prior VIHR, 30 (37%) had an incarcerated hernia and 34 (42%) had multiple fascial defects. PTFE was used in 83% and Prolene in 12%. Average LOS was 5.8+/-12 days. All received perioperative intravenous antibiotics and 28% were discharged on oral antibiotics. Follow-up averaged 30+/-24 months. Recurrent VIH developed in 12/81 (15%), with three occurring after removal of infected mesh and one after a laparotomy. Excluding these four, the recurrence rate was 10%. There was no correlation between hernia recurrence and age, BMI, hernia size, number of prior repairs, or LOS (t-test p>0.05). Hernia recurrence did not correlate with gender, prior peritoneal contamination, incarceration, multiple defects, adhesions, mesh type, oral antibiotics, cardiac disease, diabetes, tobacco use, or seroma (X(2) p>0.05). Those with a wound infection and/or abscess formation had a significantly higher recurrent hernia rate (60% vs. 8%, X(2) p<0.001). Patients with pulmonary disease had a significantly higher recurrence rate (50% vs. 12%, X(2) p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: RS-VIHR with intraperitoneal mesh is a successful and less technically challenging method of repair than prior modifications. Aggressive efforts to identify infection and treat early may prevent abscess formation and subsequent recurrent hernia. Patients with chronic pulmonary disease have an unacceptably high recurrence rate and should not be considered as candidates for elective RS-VIHR.