Primary abandonment of the sac in the management of scrotal hernias: a dual-institution experience of short-term outcomes.

PURPOSE: Management of scrotal hernias presents as a common challenge, with operative interventions to address these hernias associated with higher rates of morbidity compared to those of less-complex pathology. Surgeons have advocated for the use of techniques such as primary abandonment of the distal sac as a potential means to reduce complications for operative intervention, with preliminary findings demonstrating feasibility. We sought to assess outcomes related to primary sac abandonment among patients undergoing minimally invasive (MIS) repair of scrotal hernias. METHODS: A review of prospectively maintained databases among two academic hernia centers was conducted to identify patients who underwent MIS inguinal hernia repairs with primary sac abandonment. Patient demographics, hernia risk factors, intraoperative factors, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Short-term outcomes related to patient-reported experiences and surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention were queried. RESULTS: Sixty-seven male patients [median age: 51.6 years; interquartile range (IQR): 45-65 years] underwent inguinal hernia repair with primary sac abandonment. Anatomic polypropylene mesh was used in 98.5% cases. Rates of postoperative complications were low and included postoperative urinary retention (6%), clinically identified or patient-reported seromas/hematomas within a 30-day follow-up period (23.9%), deep venous thrombosis (1.5%), and pelvic hematoma (1.5%). No seromas or hematomas necessitated procedural interventions, with resolution of symptoms within three months of their operation date. CONCLUSION: We report a multi-center experience of patients managed with primary abandonment of the sac technique during repair of inguinoscrotal hernias. Utilization of this technique appears to be safe and reproducible with a low burden of short-term complications.

Robotic versus open lateral abdominal hernia repair: a multicenter propensity score matched analysis of perioperative and 1-year outcomes.

PURPOSE: Lateral abdominal hernias are inherently challenging surgical entities. As such, there has been an increase in the adoption of robotic platforms to approach these challenging hernias. Our study aims to assess and compare outcomes between open (oLAHR) and robotic (rLAHR) lateral abdominal hernia repair using a national hernia-specific database. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative was performed to include all adult patients who underwent elective lateral hernia repair. A propensity score match analysis was conducted, and univariate analyses were conducted to compare these two surgical modalities across perioperative timeframes. RESULTS: The database identified 2569 patients. Our analysis matched 665 patients to either the open or robotic groups. The median length of stay, surgical site occurrences (SSO), and surgical site occurrences requiring procedural interventions (SSOPI) were higher in the oLAHR versus the rLAHR group. Overall, oLAHR had a significantly higher rate of having any post-operative complications or any SSO/SSOPI. There was no difference in quality-of-life measures between groups at 30 days and 1 year. CONCLUSION: Robotic abdominal hernia repair is a safe alternative compared to the open repair of lateral abdominal hernias with better perioperative outcomes. Despite having a longer operative time, the robotic approach can offer a significantly shorter length of stay and an overall lower rate of complications. Ultimately, there is no difference in the quality-of-life measures both at 30 days and 1 year between the open and robotic approaches.

A comparison of outcomes between class-II and class-III obese patients undergoing robotic ventral hernia repair: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Morbid obesity has been considered a contraindication to ventral hernia repair (VHR) in the past. However, the relationship between a greater body mass index (BMI) and adverse outcomes has yet to be established in the minimally invasive sphere, particularly with robotics, which may offer an effective surgical option in these high-risk patients. We sought to investigate this relationship by comparing the outcomes of class-II (BMI: 35-39.9 kg/m2) and class-III (BMI: ≥ 40 kg/m2) obese patients after robotic VHR (RVHR). METHODS: Data were analyzed from two centers and six surgeons who performed RVHR between 2013 and 2020. Patients with a BMI > 35 kg/m2 were included in the study. A 1:1 propensity score match (PSM) analysis was conducted to obtain balanced groups and univariate analyses were conducted to compare the two groups across preoperative, intraoperative, and post-operative timeframes. Postoperative complications and morbidity were reported according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification and comprehensive complication index (CCI®) systems. RESULTS: From an initial cohort of 815 patients, 228 patients with a mean BMI of 39.7 kg/m2 were included in the study. PSM analysis stratified these into 69 patients for each of the class-II and class-III groups. When comparing matched groups, there were no differences in any of the variables across all timeframes, except for a higher rate of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-based mesh use in the class-III group (39.1% vs 17.4%, p = 0.008). The estimated recurrence-free time was 76.4 months (95% CI = 72.5-80.4) for the class-II group and 80.4 months (95% CI = 78-82.8) for the class-III group. CONCLUSION: This multicenter study showed no difference in outcomes after RVHR between matched class-II and class-III obese patients.