New Traditional Chinese Medicine Supplement Reduces Pain Faster than Conventional Pain Pills Alone: A Phase I/II Prospective, Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The opioid crisis demands novel solutions for postoperative pain control. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has used herbs for the treatment of pain for thousands of years. We studied whether a synergistic multimodal TCM supplement could reduce the need for conventional pain pills for low risk surgical procedures. METHODS: In a Phase I/II, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial (PRCT), 93 patients were randomized to either TCM supplement or placebo oral medication for low-risk outpatient surgical procedures. Study medications began 3 days preoperatively and continued for 5 days postoperatively. Conventional pain pill use was not restricted. Patients were monitored postoperatively for all forms of pain pill use (Pain Pill Scoring Sheet) and subjective pain ratings (Brief Pain Inventory Short Form). Primary outcomes included type and number of pain pills used and subjective pain ratings. Secondary outcomes included an assessment of mood, general activity, sleep, and enjoyment of life. RESULTS: TCM use well tolerated. Conventional pain pill use was similar between groups. Linear regression analysis revealed that TCM reduced postoperative pain 3 times faster than placebo (P < .0001) with a 4-fold greater magnitude of relief by postoperative day 5 (P = .008). TCM also significantly improved sleep habits (P = .049) during the postoperative period. TCM effect was independent of type of surgery or amount of preoperative pain. DISCUSSION: This PRCT is the first to show that a multimodal, synergistic TCM supplement is safe and can effectively reduce acute postoperative pain more rapidly, and to a lower level, than conventional pain pills alone.

An anti-inflammatory bundle may help avoid opioids for low-risk outpatient procedures.

BACKGROUND: Currently, over half of drug overdose deaths are due to opioids. Opioid alternatives may be prescribed to help curb the opioid epidemic. However, little is known about their efficacy for acute postoperative pain. METHODS: We studied patients who underwent low-risk outpatient surgery. Perioperatively, all patients were started on an anti-inflammatory bundle consisting of multimodal pain remedies. Opioids were available to the patients postoperatively. Pain scores and opioid use were recorded. RESULTS: Over 18 months, 120 patients underwent low-risk outpatient surgery and all used the anti-inflammatory bundle. All patients had a significant decrease in postoperative pain scores (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative pain scores between those who followed the anti-inflammatory bundle alone and those who also used opioids (mean 2.2 vs 3.1/10). Twenty-five (21%) patients were using opioids preoperatively and 50 (42%) postoperatively. Of those using opioids preoperatively, six (24%) patients used the anti-inflammatory bundle alone and avoided opioids postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: For 58% of our patients, an anti-inflammatory bundle alone provided adequate pain control after a low-risk outpatient operation, such as hernia repair. Our practice uses the anti-inflammatory bundle for all patients. Our goal is to reduce both the need for opioids and the surgeon's contribution to the opioid epidemic.

Patients With Systemic Reaction to Their Hernia Mesh: An Introduction to Mesh Implant Illness.

In our practice, we have noticed an increased number of patients requiring mesh removal due to a systemic reaction to their implant. We present our experience in diagnosing and treating a subpopulation of patients who require mesh removal due to a possible mesh implant illness (MII). All patients who underwent mesh removal for indication of mesh reaction were captured from a hernia database. Data extraction focused on the patients' predisposing medical conditions, presenting symptoms suggestive of mesh implant illness, types of implants to which reaction occurred, and postoperative outcome after mesh removal. Over almost 7 years, 165 patients had mesh removed. Indication for mesh removal was probable MII in 28 (17%). Most were in females (60%), average age was 46 years, with average pre-operative pain score 5.4/10. All patients underwent complete mesh removal. Sixteen (57%) required tissue repair of their hernia; 4 (14%) had hybrid mesh implanted. Nineteen (68%) had improvement and/or resolution of their MII symptoms within the first month after removal. We present insight into a unique but rising incidence of patients who suffer from systemic reaction following mesh implantation. Predisposing factors include female sex, history of autoimmune disorder, and multiple medical and environmental allergies and sensitivities. Presenting symptoms included spontaneous rashes, erythema and edema over the area of implant, arthralgia, headaches, and chronic fatigue. Long-term follow up after mesh removal confirmed resolution of symptoms after mesh removal. We hope this provides greater attention to patients who present with vague, non-specific but debilitating symptoms after mesh implantation.

Risks of therapeutic versus prophylactic neurectomies.

INTRODUCTION: Neuralgia due to a peripheral nerve injury may result in chronic pain, requiring a therapeutic surgical neurectomy. Meanwhile, some neurectomies are performed prophylactically, such as during inguinal mesh removal. Outcomes and risks associated with neurectomies are largely unknown despite consensus panels recommending them. METHODS: All patients who underwent neurectomy 2013-2020 were analyzed. Data collection included demographics, preoperative symptoms, and postoperative outcomes. Indications for neurectomy were categorized as "therapeutic" if the patient had preoperative neuralgia or "prophylactic" if neurectomy was deemed necessary intra-operatively. RESULTS: 66 patients underwent 80 operations and a total of 122 neurectomies. On average, 1.5 neurectomies were performed per operation. Therapeutic neurectomies were performed in 42 (64%) patients and prophylactic in 34 (52%). The most commonly transected nerve was the ilioinguinal nerve. Average preoperative pain score was 5.8/10. On paired analysis, there was a significant reduction in pain after prophylactic neurectomy (2.5 points, p = 0.002) but not after therapeutic neurectomy. None of the nerves transected prophylactically had postoperative neuralgia, whereas 35% of the nerves transected therapeutically resulted in persistent or recurrent neuralgia (p < 0.001). To treat this, 21% required only nerve blocks and 9% required ablation or reoperative neurectomy. Three patients had complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a severe complication; all three were diagnosed with chronic pain syndrome pre-operatively. DISCUSSION: We demonstrate that prophylactic neurectomy is largely safe. In contrast, a therapeutic neurectomy had a 35% risk of persistent or recurrent neuralgia, 9% required additional ablative or reoperative neurectomy. Three patients advanced from chronic pain syndrome to CRPS. We recommend the decision to perform a neurectomy be judicious and selective, especially in patients with known chronic pain syndrome. Prior to planning surgical neurectomy, other less invasive modalities should be exhausted and patients should be aware of its risks.

Outcomes from laparoscopic versus robotic mesh removal after inguinal hernia repair.

INTRODUCTION: Preperitoneally placed mesh for inguinal hernia repair may require removal to address hernia recurrence, mesh reaction, meshoma, or other chronic pain. These are best approached either laparoscopically or robotically, but there is no consensus on which is the best approach for mesh removal nor are there any studies to evaluate and compare their outcomes. METHODS: All patients who underwent inguinal mesh removal via laparoscopic and robotic approaches from 2011 to 2020 were analyzed. Data regarding demographics, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Over 9 years, 62 patients underwent 24 laparoscopic and 50 robotic operations. Laparoscopic cases had a shorter operative time by a mean of 55 min (p = 0.02). There were no differences in intraoperative complications or postoperative outcomes between the two groups. Patients in both groups showed significant improvement after mesh removal (p = 0.02, p < 0.01) within 2 weeks postoperatively and at long-term follow up (p < 0.01, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: It is our experience that both laparoscopic and robotic approaches are viable options for removal of retroperitoneally placed inguinal mesh. Operative time with the laparoscopic approach was significantly shorter than the robotic approach. Patients on average had significant reduction in their preoperative pain, regardless of the approach. Minimally invasive mesh removal is a technically challenging operation, with risk of vascular and nerve injuries regardless of the approach. These findings demonstrate that both modalities are safe and effective with experienced surgeons.

Flank incisional hernia after lateral approach spine operations: presentation and outcomes after repair.

BACKGROUND: The flank approach to lumbar spine surgery is considered a new minimally invasive alternative to the anterior abdominal approach. Flank incisional hernia is one complication, but it has been poorly studied. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients referred for evaluation of abdominal bulging after Lateral Interbody Fusion (LIF), 2013-2020. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were evaluated for abdominal bulging after LIF: 14 were diagnosed with incisional hernias. Three with denervation injury without hernia defect were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study addressing incisional flank hernias after LIF, an under-represented complication in the spine literature. We show that the patients present early, within months of their operation, and yet most hernias are not diagnosed for over a year. Although LIF is considered a minimally invasive procedure, the morbidity from hernia complications cannot be overlooked. These flank hernias are difficult to repair with suboptimal outcomes. We prefer robotic approach with primary closure of the defect and extraperitoneal sublay mesh, whenever possible. Prevention is key. To help reduce risk of hernia, we recommend closure of all muscle layers with slowly absorbable suture; this is different than was originally described in the spine literature.

Thou shalt not trust online videos for inguinal hernia repair techniques.

BACKGROUND: Videos are used by surgeons when learning new techniques; however, online videos are often not vetted. Our aim is to review online videos of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs based on a benchmark for critical view of the myopectineal orifice (MPO) and safe inguinal hernia repair as defined by Daes and Felix and commonly referred to as "the 9 Commandments." METHODS AND MATERIALS: YouTubeⓇ was queried for "laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair." The top 50 videos were ranked based on number of views. Those endorsed and/or vetted by surgical societies were excluded (n = 4). Three expert hernia surgeons scored the videos based on adherence to the 9 Commandments. RESULTS: The 50 videos originated from 11 countries. They had 72,825 mean views and a mean runtime of 14 min. Videos obeyed a median of 77.8% of commandments shown. Eight videos (16%) obeyed all 9 (100%) commandments. Three videos (6%) failed to obey any commandments. Operations employed TEP (18, 36%), TAPP (28, 56%), and rTAPP (4, 8%) approach. Stratification by approach showed significant variance in commandments obeyed (Kurskal-Wallis, p = 0.016) with significant difference between TEP and rTAPP scores (p = 0.008) and no significant difference between TEP and TAPP or rTAPP and TAPP scores. Twenty-three videos (46%) displayed unsafe techniques including: threatened critical structures (16, 32%), rough tissue handling (15, 30%), and dangerous placement of fixation (9, 18%). CONCLUSION: Online surgical videos on YouTube are not reliable in demonstrating best practices for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs. In our study, only 16% of the most viewed videos followed all 9 Commandments for critical view of the MPO. Many showed suboptimal repairs with significant safety concerns. While a significant number of online videos are a free and readily available resource for surgeons around the world, we recommend caution in relying on non-vetted videos as a form of surgical education.

#Mesh: Social Media and Its Influence on Perceptions in Hernia Repair.

Social media can influence public perception in health care. By 2016, social media discussion against the use of transvaginal mesh influenced changes in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. We propose that the fate of hernia mesh will follow that of transvaginal mesh. Thus, we compare the trend of social media discussion of hernia and transvaginal mesh. Posts on Twitter and public Facebook groups were tracked for keywords "hernia," "hernia mesh," and "pelvic/vaginal mesh." Posts were categorized based on sentiment. On Facebook, 16 public groups with 14 526 members expressed negative sentiments in 95% of their 750 daily posts. Meanwhile, of the 1.1 million tweets on Twitter, those about hernia mesh were more negative (36.5%) than those about pelvic/vaginal mesh (29.2%). Three of the 5 top tweeters about hernia mesh and pelvic/vaginal mesh were linked to law firms involved in mesh-based lawsuits. The negative sentiments and steering of social media discussion by lawyers may directly affect surgical care. As surgeons, we may adapt our informed consent to acknowledge our patients' apprehensions about mesh. We may also be more involved in social media discussions ourselves. Meanwhile, we await FDA decisions in the regulation and availability of hernia mesh.

Clinical Value of Hernia Mesh Pathology Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Hernia mesh removal is growing in demand. Meanwhile, there is no standard for handling the mesh specimen or any consensus on the clinical value of the surgical pathology findings. STUDY DESIGN: All hernia mesh specimens gathered from 2013 to 2018 were analyzed. Patients were categorized based on indication for mesh removal. The "mesh reaction" group included those with clinical reaction deemed to be related to the mesh material. The "mesh nonreaction" group included patients who had mesh removed for a clinical indication unrelated to the mesh material. RESULTS: One hundred and one patients had 115 mesh specimens that were microscopically evaluated. Patients with clinical diagnosis of mesh reaction were significantly younger (39 vs 56 years; p = 0.023) and more likely to be female (71% vs 39%; p < 0.001) than those without mesh reaction. Although the clinical symptoms were significantly different, the pathology findings were quite similar. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clinical value in submitting mesh specimens for microscopic surgical pathology evaluation, regardless of clinical indication for the mesh removal. Also, no clinical claims can be made based on pathology findings from explanted mesh. In addition, microscopic evaluation does incur additional costs to the consumer. We recommend explanted mesh be submitted for gross examination only for documentation purposes in the medical records.