Tag Archives: Abdominal Hernia

Vascular injury in hernia repair

Posted on by
Reply

“Complications are known to occur at each and every step of hernia surgery. Applying caution while performing each step can save the patient from a lot of morbidity. One starts by applying strict patient selection criteria for endoscopic hernia repair, especially in the initial part of ones learning curve. A thorough knowledge of anatomy goes a long way in avoiding most of the complications seen in hernia repair. This anatomy needs to be relearned from what one is used to, as the approach is totally different from an open hernia repair. And finally, learning and mastering the right technique is an essential prerequisite before one ventures into inguinal hernia repair.”

“The most important preoperative precaution is proper patient selection prior to surgery, especially in the initial part of the learning curve. Ideally, direct or small indirect hernias are best. Large hernias, obese patients and irreducible, obstructed hernias are best avoided. An absolute contraindication is strangulated hernia. Also a detailed work-up of elderly patients to assess cardiorespiratory status is mandatory to ensure a safe outcome.”

Continue reading →

Component separation index

Posted on by
Reply

“Abdominal wall reconstruction in the ventral hernia patient represents a constant challenge to the general surgeon and plastic and reconstructive surgeon. Current studies lack a predictive value or objective 3-dimensional measurement to assist in the treatment algorithm or to assess and analyze surgical outcomes. On the basis of our current data, we believe the component seperation index, much like other commonly used anthropomorphic measurements, can assist with decisions for reconstructive options preoperatively.”

Continue reading →

Fundoplication at the Time of Laparoscopic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair

Posted on by
Reply

“Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair is a complex surgical problem with many variables that can affect the outcome. Based on the results of our carefully selected patients, the addition of a fundoplication minimizes postoperative reflux symptoms without additional operative time. In addition, neither dysphagia nor paraesophageal hernia recurrence is affected by the presence of a fundoplication.”

van der Westhuizen
Continue reading →

Extended-duration thromboprophylaxis after ventral hernia repair

Posted on by
Reply

“Forty-eight percent of VTEs after ventral hernia repair occur after discharge, particularly in older, male, obese patients undergoing longer and complex operations that require hospitalization > 1 day. Post-discharge thromboprophylaxis should be considered in these patients, particularly when risk of VTE exceeds 0.3%.”

Continue reading →

Antibiotic irrigation for decreasing the incidence of infection from ventral hernia repair.

Posted on by
Reply

“Surgical site infections (SSI) are common complications after open ventral hernia repair (OVHR), potentially requiring further intervention. Incidence of surgical site occurrence was significantly lower after G 1 C irrigation (Grp 1, 28.1%; Grp 2, 35.4%; Grp 3, 19.7%; P < 0.001). Incidence of SSI was significantly lower after G 1 C irrigation, but not G
alone (Grp 1, 16.5%; Grp 2, 15.2%; and Grp 3, 5.4%; P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated significantly increased SSI with contaminated wounds (OR 2.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39–6.21), dirty wounds (OR 3.84; 95% CI 1.49–9.69), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 3.70; 95% CI 2.16–6.38), as expected. Use of G 1 C was an independent predictor of decreased SSI (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16–0.67). Irrigation with a combined G 1 C antibiotic irrigation significantly reduces the incidence of surgical site infection after OVHR with mesh.” (Fatula)

Continue reading →

Sugarbaker vs Keyhole repair in parastomal hernias

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week involved the Sugarbaker repair vs Keyhole repair.

Reference: DeAsis FJ et al. Current state of laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair: a meta-analysis. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2015 Jul 28;21(28):8670-8677. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i28.8670

Summary:  The primary differences between keyhole repair and Sugarbaker repair are the orientation of the bowel and the presence of a slit in the mesh. In the modified Sugarbaker approach, the bowel is exteriorized through the side of the mesh, whereas in the Keyhole approach the bowel is inserted through a 2 to 3 cm slit in the center of mesh. Both methods apply the mesh intraperitoneally (DeAsis et al, 2015, p.8673).

DeAsis et al (2015) performed a systematic review of PubMed and Medline. The primary outcome analyzed was recurrence of parastomal hernia. Secondary outcomes were mesh infection, surgical site infection, obstruction requiring reoperation, death, and other complications.

In an analysis of 15 articles involving 469 patients, the recurrence rate was 10.2% (95%CI: 3.9-19.0) for the modified laparoscopic Sugarbaker approach, and 27.9% (95%CI: 12.3-46.9) for the keyhole approach. There were no intraoperative mortalities reported and six mortalities during the postoperative course.

The review concluded that the non-slit mesh modified Sugarbaker approach and the slit mesh Keyhole approach are currently the most reported options for laparoscopic repair. When choosing between the two, a modified Sugarbaker technique appears to be a superior method given the low recurrence rates compared to the keyhole technique if an ePTFE mesh is used (p.8676).