Prediction of successful revision surgery for mesh-related complaints after inguinal hernia and pelvic organ prolapse repair.

PURPOSE: With this retrospective case series, we aim to identify predictors for reduction of pain after mesh revision surgery in patients operated for inguinal hernia or pelvic organ prolapse with a polypropylene implant. Identifying these predictors may aid surgeons to counsel patients and select appropriate candidates for mesh revision surgery. METHODS: Clinical records before and after mesh revision surgery from 221 patients with chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) and 59 patients with pain after pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery were collected at two experienced tertiary referral centers. Primary outcome was patient reported improvement of pain after revision surgery. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to specify predictors for pain reduction. RESULTS: The multivariable logistic regression was performed for each patient group separately. Patients with CPIP had higher chances of improvement of pain when time between mesh placement and mesh revision surgery was longer, with an OR of 1.19 per year. A turning point in chances of risks and benefits was demonstrated at 70 months, with improved outcomes for patients with revision surgery ≥ 70 months (OR 2.86). For POP patients, no statistically significant predictors for reduction of pain after (partial) removal surgery could be identified. CONCLUSION: A longer duration of at least 70 months between implantation of inguinal mesh and revision surgery seems to give a higher chance on improvement of pain. Caregivers should not avoid surgery based on a longer duration of symptoms when an association between symptoms and the location of the mesh is found.

Impact of a multidisciplinary team discussion on planned ICU admissions after complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Patients often need admission at an Intensive Care Unit (ICU), immediately after complex abdominal wall reconstruction (CAWR). Lack of ICU resources requires adequate patient selection for a planned postoperative ICU admission. Risk stratification tools like Fischer score and Hernia Patient Wound (HPW) classification may improve patient selection. This study evaluates the decision-making process in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) on justified ICU admissions for patients after CAWR. METHODS: A pre-Covid-19 pandemic cohort of patients, discussed in a MDT and subsequently underwent CAWR between 2016 and 2019, was analyzed. A justified ICU admission was defined by any intervention within the first 24 h postoperatively, considered not suitable for a nursing ward. The Fischer score predicts postoperative respiratory failure by eight parameters and a high score (> 2) warrants ICU admission. The HPW classification ranks complexity of hernia (size), patient (comorbidities) and wound (infected surgical field) in four stages, with increasing risk for postoperative complications. Stages II-IV point to ICU admission. Accuracy of the MDT decision and (modifications of) risk-stratification tools on justified ICU admissions were analyzed by backward stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Pre-operatively, the MDT decided a planned ICU admission in 38% of all 232 CAWR patients. Intra-operative events changed the MDT decision in 15% of all CAWR patients. MDT overestimated ICU need in 45% of ICU planned patients and underestimated in 10% of nursing ward planned patients. Ultimately, 42% went to the ICU and 27% of all 232 CAWR patients were justified ICU patients. MDT accuracy was higher than the Fischer score, HPW classification or any modification of these risk stratification tools. CONCLUSION: A MDT's decision for a planned ICU admission after complex abdominal wall reconstruction was more accurate than any of the other risk-stratifying tools. Fifteen percent of the patients experienced unexpected operative events that changed the MDT decision. This study demonstrated the added value of a MDT in the care pathway of patients with complex abdominal wall hernias.

Inadequate awareness of adherence to ARRIVE guidelines, regarding reporting quality of hernia models repaired with meshes: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Research papers involving animal studies often display poor reporting standards, leading to lower study reproducibility. We aim to determine the difference in reporting animal studies regarding abdominal wall hernia repair with mesh placement, before and after the publication of ARRIVE-2010 (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. Furthermore, we aim to present the most up-to-date reporting quality using the updated ARRIVE-2020 as criteria. METHODS: All animal studies concerning hernia repair with meshes were systematically searched. Articles published in the 5 years leading up to the ARRIVE-2010 (pre-ARRIVE) and articles within the last 5 years until the updated ARRIVE 2.0 (post-ARRIVE) were compared for overall species and specific species separately. Articles published last year were evaluated for presenting fully reported (sub)items. RESULTS: The number of fully reported (sub)items per article was on average significantly higher for pre-ARRIVE than post-ARRIVE for overall species (mean (SD) = 14.0 (2.8) vs. 12.6 (2.5), P < 0.001). The same applies to rabbit (mean (SD) = 14.8 (2.6) vs. 12.6 (2.6), P = 0.001) and pig studies (mean (SD) = 14.5 (2.7) vs. 11.6 (2.6), P = 0.004), with no significance in rat studies (mean (SD) = 13.6 (2.9) vs. 12.9 (2.3), P = 0.076). Significance was found in several (sub)items between pre-ARRIVE and post-ARRIVE (n = 7, 3, 8, and 3 for overall species, rat, rabbit, and pig studies, respectively). CONCLUSION: General reporting quality of animal experiments has been improved markedly by ARRIVE guidelines. However, more improvements are required considering the arrival of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines.