Kingsnorth's modified score as predictor of complications in open inguinal hernia repair.

PURPOSE: This study aims to analyse the postoperative complications (30 days) on unilateral primary inguinal hernia repair and prove their correlation with the preoperative modified scoring system of Kingsnorth (KN). METHODS: Prospective study design collecting data from patients who underwent surgery for unilateral primary inguinal hernia in a University Hospital. The data were collected in the National Inguinal Hernia Registry (EVEREG). A statistical analysis to assess the association between the presence of postoperative complications and the preoperative and intraoperative variables was performed. The patients were classified depending on their KN score. Surgical complications and their relationship with the classification were specifically analysed. Study design was performed following STROBE statements. RESULTS: The sample included 403 patients who met the inclusion criteria from which 62 (15.3%) subjects presented postoperative complications. The variables that presented a statistically significant relationship with the appearance of complications were a KN score of 5-8 (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.07-4.82; P = 0.03) and the involvement of a member of the abdominal wall surgery unit in the procedure (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.08-0.92; P = 0.03). The KN score correlated with a longer duration of surgery (Pearson's correlation 0.291; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The KN classification can predict the onset of surgical wound complications on patients who undergo a primary unilateral inguinal hernia surgery. A KN score of 5-8 has a higher probability of wound complications. When surgery is performed by the abdominal wall surgery unit, the chances of postoperative complications decrease.

Hernias de la incisión de asistencia tras resección colorrectal laparoscópica. Influencia de la localización de la incisión y del uso de una malla profiláctica / Hernias at the extraction incision after laparoscopic colon and rectal resection: Influence of incision location and use of prophylactic mesh

Objetivos: Determinar la incidencia de hernia incisional (HI) en la incisión de asistencia (IA) de la pieza en cirugía por neoplasia de colon y recto. Análisis de la relación de la localización de la incisión y uso de una malla en la prevención de la HI en pacientes de alto riesgo. Métodos: Revisión retrospectiva de la base de datos de cirugía de colon entre enero de 2015 y diciembre de 2016. Se establecieron 2 grupos: incisión transversa (IT) e incisión media (IM), a su vez este con 2 subgrupos (malla [IMM] y sutura [IMS]). Se categorizaron los pacientes mediante el sistema HERNIAscore. Las hernias se diagnosticaron clínicamente y por TAC. Resultados: Se intervino a 210 pacientes, de los que fueron incluidos 182. Tras un seguimiento de 13,0 meses, se detectaron un total de 39 HI (21,9%), de las que 23 (13,4%) fueron en las IA. Estas fueron mucho menos frecuentes en el grupo de IT (3,4%) y en el de IMM (5,9%) que en el de IMS (29,5%; p = 0,007). La probabilidad de aparición en el grupo IMS de una HI presentó una OR = 11,7 (IC 95%: 3,3-42,0) frente a las IT y de 4,3 (IC 95%: 1,1-16,3) frente al grupo IMM. Conclusiones: La localización de la incisión es relevante para disminuir las HI. La IT debería ser utilizada preferentemente. En los casos en que se utilice una IM, el uso de una malla profiláctica en pacientes de alto riesgo puede considerarse, ya que es seguro y con baja morbilidad

Objectives: To determine the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) in the extraction incision (EI) in colorectal resection for cancer. To analyze whether the location of the incision has any relationship with the incidence of hernias and whether mesh could be useful for prevention in high-risk patients. Methods: Retrospective review of the colon and rectal surgery database from January 2015 to December 2016. Data were classified into 2groups, transverse (TI) and midline incision (MI), and the latter was divided into 2subgroups (mesh [MIM] and suture [MIS]). Patients were classified using the HERNIA score. Hernias were diagnosed by clinical and/or CT examination. Results: A total of 182 out of 210 surgical patients were included. After a median follow-up of 13.0 months, 39 IH (21.9%) were detected, 23 of which (13.4%) were in the EI; their frequency was lower in the TI group (3.4%) and in the MIM group (5.9%) than in the MIS group (29.5%; p=0.007). The probability of developing IH in the MIS group showed an OR=11.7 (95%CI: 3.3-42.0) compared to the TI group and 4.3 (IC 95%: 1.1-16.3) versus the MIM group. Conclusions: The location of the incision is relevant to avoid incisional hernias. Transverse incisions should be used as the first option. When a midline incision is needed, a prophylactic mesh could be considered in high risk patients because it is safe and associated with low morbidity

Hernias at the extraction incision after laparoscopic colon and rectal resection: Influence of incision location and use of prophylactic mesh. / Hernias de la incisión de asistencia tras resección colorrectal laparoscópica. Influencia de la localización de la incisión y del uso de una malla profiláctica.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) in the extraction incision (EI) in colorectal resection for cancer. To analyze whether the location of the incision has any relationship with the incidence of hernias and whether mesh could be useful for prevention in high-risk patients. METHODS: Retrospective review of the colon and rectal surgery database from January 2015 to December 2016. Data were classified into 2groups, transverse (TI) and midline incision (MI), and the latter was divided into 2subgroups (mesh [MIM] and suture [MIS]). Patients were classified using the HERNIAscore. Hernias were diagnosed by clinical and/or CT examination. RESULTS: A total of 182 out of 210 surgical patients were included. After a median follow-up of 13.0 months, 39 IH (21.9%) were detected, 23 of which (13.4%) were in the EI; their frequency was lower in the TI group (3.4%) and in the MIM group (5.9%) than in the MIS group (29.5%; p=0.007). The probability of developing IH in the MIS group showed an OR=11.7 (95%CI: 3.3-42.0) compared to the TI group and 4.3 (IC 95%: 1.1-16.3) versus the MIM group. CONCLUSIONS: The location of the incision is relevant to avoid incisional hernias. Transverse incisions should be used as the first option. When a midline incision is needed, a prophylactic mesh could be considered in high risk patients because it is safe and associated with low morbidity.