Salvage rate of infected prosthetic mesh

“Mesh properties and position within the abdominal wall are the primary determinants in the ability to salvage mesh in the event of PMI. Mesh placed in an intraperitoneal position is rarely salvageable. Similarly, microporous, multifilament, and composite mesh constructs required complete mesh removal in most cases. However, macroporous, monofilament PP mesh in an extraperitoneal position can be salvaged in 72.2% of cases, positively impacting both the need for reoperation for mesh removal and subsequent hernia
recurrence.” (Warren)

Continue reading

The use of mesh reinforcement in hiatal hernia repair

Rausa E, et al. Prosthetic Reinforcement in Hiatal Hernia Repair, Does Mesh Material Matter? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2021 Oct;31(10):1118-1123.

Results: Seventeen articles based on 1857 patients were enrolled in this article. The point estimation showed that when compared against the control group (NAM), the HH recurrence risk in AM and cruroplasty group was higher (relative ratio [RR] 2.3; CrI 0.8-6.3, RR 3.6; CrI 2.0-8.3, respectively). Postoperative complication rates were alike in all groups. The prevalence of mesh erosion after HHR is low.

Conclusions: This network meta-analysis showed that prosthetic reinforcement significantly reduced HH recurrence when compared with cruroplasty alone. However, there is not enough evidence to compare different mesh compositions.

Continue reading

Should VICRYL mesh be used routinely during abdominal wall closure?

No. Because of its properties, it will render an abdomen impossible to re-enter for a minimum of 3 months. Should you have a need to reenter the abdomen within the ten-day window that surgeons have traditionally considered safe for abdominal re-entry, placement of VICRYL® mesh will render the abdomen ‘hostile’ for a minimum of three months.

Continue reading

WARC Journal Club: Inguinal Hernia

de Goede B, et al. Watchful Waiting Versus Surgery of Mildly Symptomatic or Asymptomatic Inguinal Hernia in Men Aged 50 Years and Older: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg. 2018 Jan;267(1):42-49.

Full-text for Emory users.

RESULTS: Between January 2006 and August 2012, 528 patients were enrolled, of whom 496 met the inclusion criteria: 234 were assigned to elective repair and 262 to watchful waiting. The mean pain/discomfort score at 24 months was 0.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28-0.41)] in the elective repair group and 0.58 (95% CI 0.52-0.64) in the watchful waiting group. The difference of these means (MD) was -0.23 (95% CI -0.32 to -0.14). In the watchful waiting group, 93 patients (35·4%) eventually underwent elective surgery and 6 patients (2·3%) received emergent surgery for strangulation/incarceration. Postoperative complication rates and recurrence rates in these 99 operated individuals were comparable with individuals originally assigned to the elective repair group (8.1% vs 15.0%; P = 0.106, 7.1% vs 8.9%; P = 0.668, respectively).

Continue reading

Open Mesh Vs. Lap Mesh Repair of Inguinal Hernia

Bullen NL, Massey LH, Antoniou SA, Smart NJ, Fortelny RH. Open versus laparoscopic mesh repair of primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Hernia. 2019; 23(3):461–472.

Full-text for Emory users.

RESULTS: This study included 12 randomised controlled trials with 3966 patients randomised to Lichtenstein repair (n = 1926) or laparoscopic repair (n = 2040). There were no significant differences in recurrence rates between the laparoscopic and open groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.51-2.55, p = 0.76). Laparoscopic repair was associated with reduced rate of acute pain compared to open repair (mean difference 1.19, CI - 1.86, - 0.51, p ≤ 0.0006) and reduced odds of chronic pain compared to open (OR 0.41, CI 0.30-0.56, p ≤ 0.00001). The included trials were, however, of variable methodological quality. Trial sequential analysis reported that further studies are unlikely to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two techniques.

Continue reading

Surgeon’s choice: TEP or TAPP for recurrent inguinal hernia repair?

One discussion involved the comparison of outcomes for TEP and TAPP for hernia repair.


Reference: Kockerling F, et al. TEP or TAPP for recurrent inguinal hernia repair-registered-based comparison of the outcome. Surgical Endoscopy. 2017 Oct;31(10):3872-3882. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5416-1

Summary: To date, no randomized trials have been conducted to compare the TEP vs TAPP outcome for recurrent inguinal hernia repair. Between September 1, 2009 and August 31, 2013 data were entered into the Herniamed Registry on a total of 2246 patients with recurrent inguinal hernia repair following previous open primary operation in either TAPP (n = 1,464) or TEP technique (n = 782).

  • TAPP group: recurrent repair was performed for n=974/1,464 (66.5%) patients after suture and n=490/1,464 (33.5%) after mesh repair.
  • TEP group: recurrent repair was performed for n=554/782 (70.8%) patients following previous suture repair and for n=228/782 (29.2%) after mesh repair.

No significant differences were found between the recurrent operations in TEP vs TAPP technique with regard to the intraoperative complications, complication-related reoperations, re-recurrence rates, rates of pain at rest, pain on exertion, or chronic pain requiring treatment. Unfavorable results were identified only with regard to the higher seroma rates associated with TAPP; these responded to conservative treatment.

In summary, both TEP and TAPP can be recommended as effective techniques for treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia following previous open primary operation. The decision to use one or the other technique should be based solely on the surgeon’s expertise. The registry study presented here thus confirms the recommendations in the guidelines on laparo-endoscopic treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia following previous open primary operation.