Repair of umbilical hernias concomitant to other procedures is safe: a propensity score-matched database study.

BACKGROUND: Repair of an umbilical hernia is most often considered the less important condition when concomitant with other abdominal surgery. Despite this, the evidence for a concomitant umbilical hernia repair is sparse. The aim of this nationwide cohort study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of primary umbilical hernia repair and umbilical hernia repair concomitant with other abdominal surgery. METHOD: Data from the Danish Hernia Database and the National Patients Registry from January 2007 to December 2018 was merged, resulting in identification of patients receiving umbilical hernia concomitant to another abdominal surgery (laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and laparoscopic appendectomy). This group was propensity score matched with patients undergoing umbilical hernia repair as a primary procedure. Outcome data included 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation, and operation for recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 3365 primary umbilical hernia repairs and 2418 umbilical hernia repairs concomitant to other abdominal surgery were included. Readmission (10.5%, 255/2418) and reoperation (3.8%, 93/2418) rates within 90 days were decreased for umbilical hernia repairs concomitant to other abdominal surgery, compared with primary umbilical hernia repairs (22.7%, 765/3365) and (10.5%, 255/3365), P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively. The rate of operation for recurrence was significantly increased for primary repairs (4.2%, 141/3365), compared with repairs concomitant to other abdominal surgery (3.2%, 77/2418), P = 0.014. CONCLUSION: Outcome in umbilical hernia repair performed concomitant to laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, elective or emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy, or laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to umbilical hernia repair without concomitant surgery.

Short-term outcomes after open versus robot-assisted repair of ventral hernias: a nationwide database study.

PURPOSE: The robotic platform is widely implemented; however, evidence evaluating outcomes of robotic ventral hernia repair is still lacking. The aim of the study was to evaluate the short-term outcomes after open and robot-assisted repair of primary ventral and incisional hernias. METHODS: Nationwide register-based cohort study with data from the Danish Ventral Hernia Database and the National Danish Patients Registry was from January 1, 2017 to August 22, 2022. Robot-assisted ventral hernia repairs were propensity score matched 1:3 with open repairs according to the confounding variables defect size, Charlson comorbidity index score, and age. Logistic regression analyses were performed for factors associated with length of stay > 2 days, readmission, and reoperation within 90 days. RESULTS: A total of 528 and 1521 patients underwent robot-assisted and open repair, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay in days was 0.5 versus 2.1 for robot-assisted and open approach, respectively (P < 0.001) and open approach was correlated with risk of length of stay > 2 days (OR 23.25, CI 13.80-39.17, P < 0.001). The incidence of readmission within 90 days of discharge was significantly lower after robot-assisted repair compared to open approach (6.2% vs. 12.1%, P < 0.001). Open approach was independently associated with increased risk of readmission (OR 21.43, CI 13.28-39.17, P = 0.005, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted ventral hernia repair is safe and feasible and associated with shorter length of stay and decreased risk of readmission compared with open ventral hernia repair.

Open versus laparoscopic umbilical and epigastric hernia repair: nationwide data on short- and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether an open or laparoscopic approach results in the best outcomes for repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias. The aim of the study was to evaluate the rates of 90-day readmission and reoperation for complication, together with rate of operation for recurrence after either open or laparoscopic mesh repair for primary umbilical or epigastric hernias with defect widths above 1 cm. METHODS: A merge of data between the Danish Hernia Database and the National Patient Registry provided data from 2007 to 2018 on perioperative information, 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation for complication, and long-term operation for hernia recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 6855 patients were included, of whom 4106 (59.9%) and 2749 (40.1%) patients had an open or laparoscopic repair, respectively. There were significantly more patients readmitted with a superficial surgical site infection 2.5% (102/4106) after open repair compared with laparoscopic repair (0.5% (15/2749), P < 0.001. The 90-day reoperation rate for complications was significantly higher for open repairs 5.0% (205/4106) compared with laparoscopic repairs 2.7% (75/2749), P < 0.001. The incidence of a reoperation for a severe condition was significantly increased after laparoscopic repair 1.5% (41/2749) compared with open repair 0.8% (34/4106), P = 0.010. The 4-year cumulative incidence of operation for hernia recurrence was 3.5% after open and 4.2% after laparoscopic repairs, P = 0.302. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence rates were comparable between open and laparoscopic repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias. Open repair was associated with a significantly higher rate of readmission and reoperation due to surgical site infection, whereas the rate of reoperation due to a severe complication was significantly higher after laparoscopic repair.

Randomized clinical trial on closure versus non-closure of mesenteric defects during laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND: Internal herniation is a well known and potentially life-threatening complication of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefit and harm of closing the mesenteric defects with clips during LRYGB to prevent internal herniation. METHODS: This was a single-centre, single-blinded RCT. Patients eligible for LRYGB were randomized to surgery with or without closure of mesenteric defects with clips. The primary endpoint was the incidence of (intermittent) internal herniation after LRYGB with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery, number of clips used, trocars and sutures used, postoperative pain measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS), and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Between 13 August 2012 and 18 May 2017, 401 patients were randomized to closure (201) or non-closure (200) of mesenteric defects. Median follow-up for both groups was 59 months (range 8-67 and 16-67 months in non-closure and closure groups respectively). The cumulated risk of internal herniation after 2 years was 8.0 per cent in the non-closure group compared with 4.5 per cent in the closure group (hazard ratio (HR) 1.81, 95 per cent c.i. 0.80 to 4.12; P = 0.231). At 5 years, rates were 15.5 and 6.5 per cent respectively (HR 2.52, 1.32 to 4.81; P = 0.005). Closure of mesenteric defects increased operating time by a median of 4 min (95 per cent c.i. 52 to 56 min for the non-closure group and 56 to 60 min for the closure group; P = 0.002). There was no difference in postoperative blood transfusion rates and VAS scores between the groups. CONCLUSION: Routine closure of the mesenteric defects in LRYGB with clips is associated with a lower rate of internal herniation. Registration number: NCT01595230 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Open versus laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: nationwide database study.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic repair of incisional hernias decreases the incidence of wound complications compared with open repair, there has been rising concern related to intraperitoneal mesh placement. The aim of this study was to examine outcomes after open or laparoscopic elective incisional hernia mesh repair on a nationwide basis. METHODS: This study analysed merged data from the Danish Hernia Database and the National Patient Registry on perioperative information, 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation for complication, and long-term operation for hernia recurrence among patients who underwent primary repair of an incisional hernia between 2007 and 2018. RESULTS: A total of 3090 (57.5 per cent) and 2288 (42.5 per cent) patients had surgery by a laparoscopic and open approach respectively. The defect was closed in 865 of 3090 laparoscopic procedures (28.0 per cent). The median follow-up time was 4.0 (i.q.r. 1.8-6.8) years. Rates of readmission (502 of 3090 (16.2 per cent) versus 442 of 2288 (19.3 per cent); P = 0.003) and reoperation for complication (216 of 3090 (7.0 per cent) versus 288 of 2288 (12.5 per cent); P < 0.001) were significantly lower for laparoscopic than open repairs. Reoperation for bowel obstruction or bowel resection was twice as common after laparoscopic repair compared with open repair (20 of 3090 (0.6 per cent) versus 6 of 2288 (0.3 per cent); P = 0.044). Patients were significantly less likely to undergo repair of recurrence following laparoscopic compared with open repair of defect widths 2-6 cm (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic intraperitoneal mesh repair for incisional hernia should still be considered for fascial defects between 2 and 6 cm, because of decreased rates of early complications and repair of hernia recurrence compared with open repair.

Surgical repair of parastomal bulging: a retrospective register-based study on prospectively collected data.

AIM: The aim of this work was to examine (1) the incidence of primary repair, (2) the incidence of recurrent repair and (3) the types of repair performed in patients with parastomal bulging. METHOD: Prospectively collected data on parastomal bulging from the Danish Stoma Database were linked to surgical data on repair of parastomal bulging from the Danish National Patient Register. Survival statistics provided cumulative incidences and time until primary and recurrent repair. RESULTS: In the study sample of 1016 patients with a permanent stoma and a parastomal bulge, 180 (18%) underwent surgical repair. The cumulative incidence of a primary repair was 9% [95% CI (8%; 11%)] within 1 year and 19% [95% CI (17%; 22%)] within 5 years after the occurrence of a parastomal bulge. We found a similar probability of undergoing primary repair in patients with ileostomy and colostomy. For recurrent repair, the 5-year cumulative incidence was 5% [95% CI (3%; 7%)]. In patients undergoing repair, the probability was 33% [95% CI (21%; 46%)] of having a recurrence requiring repair within 5 years. The main primary repair was open or laparoscopic repair with mesh (43%) followed by stoma revision (39%). Stoma revision and repair with mesh could precede or follow one another as primary and recurrent repair. Stoma reversal was performed in 17% of patients. CONCLUSION: Five years after the occurrence of a parastomal bulge the estimated probability of undergoing a repair was 19%. Having undergone a primary repair, the probability of recurrent repair was high. Stoma reversal was more common than expected.

Differential recurrence after laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: importance of a nationwide registry-based mesh surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Identification of suboptimal mesh products is essential to improve the outcome after hernia surgery. This study investigated whether a national clinical database combined with administrative registries may serve as a tool for postmarketing evaluation of mesh products for hernia surgery. METHODS: This was a propensity score-matched case-control cohort study comparing outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic incisional hernia repair with either one particular mesh or any other synthetic mesh. Data on patients registered in the Danish Ventral Hernia Database between 2010 and 2016 were combined with administrative data from the Danish National Patient Registry. The primary outcome was operation for recurrence. Secondary outcomes were 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation for complications (excluding hernia recurrence), and mortality after 30 and 90 days. RESULTS: In total, 740 patients who underwent repair with one particular mesh were matched with 1479 patients who received any other synthetic mesh. The rate of repair for hernia recurrence was significantly higher in the particular mesh group than in the reference group: 12·8 versus 6·3 per cent respectively (hazard ratio 2·09, 95 per cent c.i. 1·57 to 2·79; P < 0·001). Use of the particular mesh increased the risk of readmission (odds ratio (OR) 1·53, 1·16 to 2·01; P = 0·002) and reoperation for a complication (OR 1·60, 1·03 to 2·47, P = 0·030). No difference in mortality was found. CONCLUSION: Clinical registries with prospectively collected data can provide long-term surveillance of commercial mesh. Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair with one particular mesh was associated with an increased rate of short-term complications and double the risk of repair for recurrence.

ANTECEDENTES: Es esencial identificar los productos subóptimos referidos a las mallas para mejorar los resultados en la cirugía de la hernia. Este estudio analizó si un registro clínico nacional combinado con registros de bases de datos administrativos puede servir como herramienta para la evaluación post-comercialización de productos de mallas para cirugía de la hernia. MÉTODOS: Se efectuó un estudio de emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión de una cohorte de casos y controles en el que se comparaban los resultados de la malla Physiomesh® frente a cualquier otra malla sintética en pacientes sometidos a una reparación laparoscópica de una eventración. Se combinaron los datos de los pacientes del registro danés de hernia entre 2010 y 2016 con los datos administrativos del registro nacional de pacientes de Dinamarca. La variable principal fue la reintervención por recidiva. Las variables secundarias fueron el reingreso a 30 días, la reoperación a 30 días por complicaciones (excluyendo la recidiva de la hernia) y la mortalidad a 30 y 90 días. RESULTADOS: Para la reparación herniaria se utilizó la malla Physiomesh® en 740 pacientes, que se emparejaron mediante el análisis por puntaje de propensión con 1.479 pacientes en los que se colocó otra malla sintética. La reintervención por recidiva herniaria fue significativamente mayor en el grupo Physiomesh® (12,8%) que en el grupo de referencia (6,3%); cociente de riesgos instantáneos (hazard ratio, HR): 2,09 (i.c. del 95%: 1,57-2,79), P < 0,001. El riesgo de reingreso (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR: 1,53, 1,16-2,01, P = 0,002)) y de reoperación por una complicación (OR: 1,60, 1,03-2,47, P = 0,030) fueron superiores en el grupo Physiomesh®. No hubo diferencia en la mortalidad. CONCLUSIÓN: Los grandes registros clínicos con datos recogidos de forma prospectiva pueden ser útiles para efectuar el seguimiento a largo plazo de una malla comercializada para garantizar la seguridad del producto y su calidad quirúrgica. La reparación laparoscópica de una eventración con la malla Physiomesh® se asociaba con un riesgo doble de recidiva y un aumento de la tasa de complicaciones a corto plazo.

Closure of the fascial defect during laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to analyse patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), seroma formation, long-term recurrence and chronic pain after closure of the fascial defect in patients undergoing laparoscopic umbilical hernia mesh repair. METHODS: This was a randomized double-blinded trial in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic umbilical hernia repair comparing sutured closure of the fascial defect before intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) repair with a no-closure IPOM repair. Postoperative pain, movement limitations, discomfort and fatigue were registered before surgery and on postoperative days 1-3, 7 and 30. Seroma formation, quality of life and cosmesis were assessed at day 30, and at 2 years of follow-up. Recurrence (clinical and reoperation) and chronic pain were assessed after 2 years. RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomized. Median defect sizes in closure and no-closure groups were 2·5 (range 1·5-4·0) and 2·5 (2·0-5·5) cm respectively (P = 0·895). There were no significant differences in early and late postoperative pain or in any other early or late PROMs, except for early fatigue which was higher in the closure group (P = 0·011). Seroma formation after 30 days was significantly reduced after closure (14 of 40; 35 (95 per cent c.i. 22 to 51) per cent) compared with no closure (22 of 38; 58 (42 to 72) per cent) (P = 0·043). Cumulative recurrence after 2 years was lower in the closure group: 5 of 36 (7 (3 to 17) per cent) versus 12 of 37 (19 (10 to 33) per cent) for no closure (P = 0·047). CONCLUSION: Closure of the fascial defect in laparoscopic umbilical hernia IPOM repair significantly reduced early seroma formation and long-term recurrence without inducing side-effects such as pain, or other early or late PROMs. Registration number: NCT01962480 ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Cotinine Test in Evaluating Smoking Cessation at the Day of Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Smoking increases the risk of postoperative complications after bariatric surgery. Therefore, preoperative smoking cessation is mandatory according to Danish guidelines before elective bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate if patients scheduled for bariatric surgery continue to smoke on the day of their operation despite recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective single-center study including all patients scheduled for bariatric surgery from June to December 2017 at Zealand University Hospital in Denmark. Urine samples were collected on the day of surgery to test for cotinine. During the minimum preoperative period of 3 months, patients were repeatedly informed of the increased risk of complications, that smoking cessation was mandatory, that rescheduling of the surgery was possible if more time to achieve smoking cessation was necessary, and if tested positive on the day of surgery, the operation would be canceled. RESULTS: Of the 71 patients included, 9 patients (13%) were tested positive. After confrontation with the test result, all but 1 patient confessed to smoking. Overall, 6 out of 12 patients (50%) who were actively smoking at the time of referral tested positive, and 2 out of 25 patients (8%) who claimed to have smoked previously tested positive. No patients claiming no smoking history tested positive. CONCLUSION: Despite information that smoking cessation was mandatory, and the scheduled bariatric operation would be canceled in case of smoking, up to 50% of patients with a history of smoking still smoked on the day of surgery.

European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias

Background International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project. Methods The guidelines development group consisted of general, hernia and colorectal surgeons, a biostatistician and a biologist, from 14 European countries. These guidelines conformed to the AGREE II standards and the GRADE methodology. The databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and the gray literature through OpenGrey were searched. Quality assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. The guidelines were presented at the 38th European Hernia Society Congress and each key question was evaluated in a consensus voting of congress participants. Results End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia, compared to other types of stomas. Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Currently available classifications are not validated; however, we suggest the use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting. There is insufficient evidence on the policy of watchful waiting, the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. The use of a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon construction of an end colostomy is strongly recommended. No such recommendation can be made for other types of stomas at present. It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, a mesh without a hole is suggested in preference to a keyhole mesh when laparoscopic repair is performed. Conclusion An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.

European Hernia Society guidelines on prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines on the prevention and treatment of parastomal hernias are lacking. The European Hernia Society therefore implemented a Clinical Practice Guideline development project. METHODS: The guidelines development group consisted of general, hernia and colorectal surgeons, a biostatistician and a biologist, from 14 European countries. These guidelines conformed to the AGREE II standards and the GRADE methodology. The databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL and the gray literature through OpenGrey were searched. Quality assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. The guidelines were presented at the 38th European Hernia Society Congress and each key question was evaluated in a consensus voting of congress participants. RESULTS: End colostomy is associated with a higher incidence of parastomal hernia, compared to other types of stomas. Clinical examination is necessary for the diagnosis of parastomal hernia, whereas computed tomography scan or ultrasonography may be performed in cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Currently available classifications are not validated; however, we suggest the use of the European Hernia Society classification for uniform research reporting. There is insufficient evidence on the policy of watchful waiting, the route and location of stoma construction, and the size of the aperture. The use of a prophylactic synthetic non-absorbable mesh upon construction of an end colostomy is strongly recommended. No such recommendation can be made for other types of stomas at present. It is strongly recommended to avoid performing a suture repair for elective parastomal hernia. So far, there is no sufficient comparative evidence on specific techniques, open or laparoscopic surgery and specific mesh types. However, a mesh without a hole is suggested in preference to a keyhole mesh when laparoscopic repair is performed. CONCLUSION: An evidence-based approach to the diagnosis and management of parastomal hernias reveals the lack of evidence on several topics, which need to be addressed by multicenter trials. Parastomal hernia prevention using a prophylactic mesh for end colostomies reduces parastomal herniation. Clinical outcomes should be audited and adverse events must be reported.

Correlation between early surgical complications and readmission rate after ventral hernia repair.

PURPOSE: Postoperative surgical complications arising from ventral hernia repair have been assessed by a variety of outcome measures. The objective of this study was to correlate the Clavien Dindo Classification (CDC) graded complications with the 30-day readmission rate as early outcome measures in ventral hernia repair. Secondarily, we wanted to investigate whether the risk factors for Clavien Dindo class ≥1 and 30-day readmission were comparable. METHODS: Single-centre retrospective study including all patients (≥18 years) who underwent ventral hernia repair between January 1, 2009 and September 1, 2014 at Zealand University Hospital. Data were obtained from hospital files and the Danish National Patient Registry. A 100% follow-up was obtained. RESULTS: In total, the study included 700 patients (261 patients with incisional hernia repair and 439 patients with umbilical or epigastric hernia repair). There was a significant association between a complication graded by the CDC ≥1 and 30-day readmission for both incisional and umbilical/epigastric hernia repair (p < 0.001). In incisional hernia, larger hernia size was an independent risk factor for CDC ≥1. No independent risk was found for 30-day readmission. Recurrent (vs. primary) hernia repair was an independent risk factors for both CDC ≥1 and 30-day readmission in umbilical/epigastric hernia repair. Furthermore, hernia size 2-7 cm (vs. >2 cm) was a risk factor for CDC ≥1 but not for 30-day readmission in umbilical/epigastric hernia repair. CONCLUSION: Reports on 30-day readmission can be used as a general outcome measure in ventral hernia repair, however CDC provides a more precise and detailed registration of postoperative complications.

Substantial variation among hernia experts in the decision for treatment of patients with incisional hernia: a descriptive study on agreement.

PURPOSE: Benign elective procedures give rise to heterogeneity in indication for surgery and surgical technique among specialized surgeons in a variety of surgical fields. The objective was to analyze the extent of agreement in surgical management among expert hernia surgeons when evaluating the same patient in a standardized setting. METHODS: Five Danish hernia experts answered questions concerning indication for surgery and surgical technique for 25 video recorded real-life clinical cases. The experts evaluated the patients by answering a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: All surgeons were experienced in incisional hernia repair with a median of 253 repairs (range 164-450 repairs). Perfect overall agreement among all the experts in indication, operation type, component separation, mesh fixation and mesh position was found in only five cases (20%). Agreement in indication for surgery was present in 14 cases (56%). The most common reason for not performing surgery was due to comorbidities. Agreement in operation type (open vs. laparoscopic) was present in 10 cases (40%). Agreement in mesh fixation (absorbable tacks/non-absorbable tacks/suture/other) method was also present in 10 cases (40%). Agreement in mesh position (onlay, sublay or intraperitoneal) was found in 40% of cases. The highest overall agreement among the surgeons was observed with regard to whether patients needed component separation (yes/no), 21 cases, (84%). CONCLUSIONS: In a standardized setting, agreement in choice of treatment strategy for patients with incisional hernias was very low among experienced surgeons. A standardization of surgical decision making is desirable to develop new interventions and improve clinical outcomes.

Watchful waiting as a treatment strategy for patients with a ventral hernia appears to be safe.

PURPOSE: Due to risks of postoperative morbidity and recurrence some patients with a ventral hernia are not offered surgical repair. There is limited data on the rate and consequences of a watchful waiting (WW) strategy for these patients. The objective of this cohort study was to analyse outcomes for patients with a ventral hernia who underwent watchful waiting, in terms of later requirement for hernia repair. METHODS: All patients (≥18 years) electively referred to our out-patient clinic from 1 January 2009 to 1 July 2014 with incisional, umbilical or epigastric hernia were included. Information on patient characteristics and whether patients underwent WW or surgery was obtained from hospital files and the Danish National Patient Register. A 100% follow-up was obtained. RESULTS: The analyses comprised 569 patients with incisional hernia (WW = 58.1%) and 789 patients with umbilical/epigastric hernia (WW = 43.2%). Kaplan-Meier analyses estimated that the probability for patients who underwent watchful waiting to receive later surgical repair was 19 for incisional hernias and 16% for umbilical/epigastric hernias after 5 years. The probability of requiring emergency repair when in the WW group was 4% for both incisional and umbilical/epigastric hernias after 5 years. There were no significant differences in 30-day readmission, reoperation or mortality rates between the WW patients who later underwent elective hernia repair and patients who were initially offered surgery (p > 0.05), for both incisional and umbilical/epigastric hernias. CONCLUSIONS: Watchful waiting appears to be a safe strategy in the treatment of incisional, umbilical and epigastric hernias.

Hepatic abscesses after adhesiolysis.

INTRODUCTION: Hematogenous spread of bacteria from the bowel due to bacterial translocation has been postulated in animal and trauma studies. This case presents a patient with possible hematogenous bacterial spreading after acute laparotomy. CASE PRESENTATION: A 57-year old woman was admitted with abdominal pain. A computed tomography showed mechanical small bowel obstruction. A laparotomy was performed showing no contamination, and no bowel resection was performed. The patient was not given any antibiotics during this time. The patient was re-admitted 24h after discharge with fever, elevated white count and abdominal pain. A computed tomography showed newly developed intrahepatic abscesses. These were treated with antibiotics, and the patient was discharged with follow-up ultrasound showing diminished abscesses. DISCUSSION: This case discusses the possible pathophysiology behind the development of intrahepatic abscesses after small bowel obstruction. CONCLUSION: Febrilia and pain in upper right quadrant of the abdomen days after a simple operation for bowel obstruction could be caused by translocation of intestinal bacteria and subsequent formation of hepatic abscesses.

Recurrence rate after absorbable tack fixation of mesh in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The mesh fixation technique in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair may influence the rates of hernia recurrence and chronic pain. This study investigated the long-term risk of recurrence and chronic pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic incisional hernia repair with either absorbable or non-absorbable tacks for mesh fixation. METHODS: This was a nationwide consecutive cohort study based on data collected prospectively concerning perioperative information and clinical follow-up. Patients undergoing primary, elective, laparoscopic incisional hernia repair with absorbable or non-absorbable tack fixation during a 4-year interval were included. Follow-up was by a structured questionnaire regarding recurrence and chronic pain, supplemented by clinical examination, and CT when indicated. Recurrence was defined as either reoperation for recurrence or clinical/radiological recurrence. RESULTS: Of 1037 eligible patients, 84·9 per cent responded to the questionnaire, and 816 were included for analysis. The median observation time for the cohort was 40 (range 0-72) months. The cumulative recurrence-free survival rate was 71·5 and 82·0 per cent after absorbable and non-absorbable tack fixation respectively (P = 0·007). In multivariable analysis, the use of absorbable tacks was an independent risk factor for recurrence (hazard ratio 1·53, 95 per cent c.i. 1·11 to 2·09; P = 0·008). The rate of moderate or severe chronic pain was 15·3 and 16·1 per cent after absorbable and non-absorbable tack fixation respectively (P = 0·765). CONCLUSION: Absorbable tack fixation of the mesh was associated with a higher risk of recurrence than non-absorbable tacks for laparoscopic mesh repair of incisional hernia, but did not influence chronic pain.

Randomized clinical trial of single- versus multi-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized studies that compare outcomes after single-incision (SLC) and conventional multi-incision (MLC) laparoscopic cholecystectomy under an optimized perioperative analgesic regimen. METHODS: This patient- and assessor-blinded randomized three-centre clinical trial compared SLC and MLC in women admitted electively with cholecystolithiasis. Outcomes were registered on the day of operation (day 0), on postoperative days 1, 2, 3 and 30, and 12 months after surgery. Blinding of the patients was maintained until day 3. The primary endpoint was pain on movement measured on a visual analogue scale, reported repeatedly by the patient until day 3. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population comprised 59 patients in the SLC and 58 in the MLC group. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to any of the pain-related outcomes, on-demand administration of opioids or general discomfort. Median duration of surgery was 32·5 min longer in the SLC group (P < 0·001). SLC was associated with a reduced incidence of vomiting on day 0 (7 versus 22 per cent; P = 0·019). The incidences of wound-related problems were comparable. One patient in the SLC group experienced a biliary leak requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The rates of incisional hernia at 12-month follow-up were 2 per cent in both groups. Cosmetic rating was significantly improved after SLC at 1 and 12 months (P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: SLC did not significantly diminish early pain in a setting with optimized perioperative analgesic patient care. SLC may reduce postoperative vomiting. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01268748 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Lower reoperation rate for recurrence after mesh versus sutured elective repair in small umbilical and epigastric hernias. A nationwide register study.

BACKGROUND: Repair for a small (≤ 2 cm) umbilical and epigastric hernia is a minor surgical procedure. The most common surgical repair techniques are a sutured repair or a repair with mesh reinforcement. However, the optimal repair technique with regard to risk of reoperation for recurrence is not well documented. The aim of the present study was in a nationwide setup to investigate the reoperation rate for recurrence after small open umbilical and epigastric hernia repairs using either sutured or mesh repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study based on intraoperative registrations from the Danish Ventral Hernia Database (DVHD) of patients undergoing elective open mesh and sutured repair for small (≤ 2 cm) umbilical and epigastric hernias. Patients were included during a 4-year study period. A complete follow-up was obtained by combining intraoperative data from the DVHD with data from the Danish National Patient Register. The cumulative reoperation rates were obtained using cumulative incidence plot and compared with the log rank test. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In total, 4,786 small (≤ 2 cm) elective open umbilical and epigastric hernia repairs were included. Age was median 48 years (range 18-95 years). Follow-up was 21 months (range 0-47 months). The cumulated reoperation rates for recurrence were 2.2 % for mesh reinforcement and 5.6 % for sutured repair (P = 0.001). The overall cumulated reoperation rate for sutured and mesh repairs was 4.8 %. In conclusion, reoperation rate for recurrence for small umbilical and epigastric hernias was significantly lower after mesh repair compared with sutured repair. Mesh reinforcement should be routine in even small umbilical or epigastric hernias to lower the risk of reoperation for recurrence avoid recurrence.