Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society [IEHS])—Part 2.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bittner R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3936125 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Guidelines are increasingly determining the decision process in day-to-day clinical work. Guidelines describe the current best possible standard in diagnostics and therapy. They should be developed by an international panel of experts, whereby alongside individual experience, above all, the results of comparative studies are decisive. According to the results of high-ranking scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, statements and recommendations are formulated, and these are graded strictly according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines can therefore be valuable in helping particularly the young surgeon in his or her day-to-day work to find the best decision for the patient when confronted with a wide and confusing range of options. However, even experienced surgeons benefit because by virtue of a heavy workload and commitment, they often find it difficult to keep up with the ever-increasing published literature. All guidelines require regular updating, usually every 3 years, in line with progress in the field. The current Guidelines focus on technique and perioperative management of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and constitute the first comprehensive guidelines on this topic. In this issue of Surgical Endoscopy, the first part of the Guidelines is published including sections on basics, indication for surgery, perioperative management, and key points of technique. The next part (Part 2) of the Guidelines will address complications and comparisons between open and laparoscopic techniques. Part 3 will cover mesh technology, hernia prophylaxis, technique-related issues, new technologic developments, lumbar and other unusual hernias, and training/education.
| S-EPMC3872300 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3936126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2014, the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias." Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. METHODS:For the development of the original guidelines, all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For the present update, all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne), the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. RESULTS:Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques, it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. CONCLUSION:Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initial guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.
| S-EPMC6722153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe recently developed Hybrid Hernia Repair technique (HHR), an adaptation of the laparoscopic method, has been proposed as a potential alternative for the treatment of complex Incisional Ventral Hernias (IVH). While single-arm studies have reported promising outcomes, a comprehensive meta-analysis affirming these benefits is lacking. This meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical outcomes of HHR and Laparoscopic Hernia Repair (LHR) in the management of IVH.MethodsAn exhaustive search of the literature was conducted, targeting publications in both English and Chinese that compare HHR and LHR up to March 31, 2023. The primary outcomes examined were operation time, blood loss, and intestinal injury. Secondary outcomes included rates of seroma, wound infection, post-operative acute/chronic pain, recurrence, and mesh bulging. The RevMan 5.0 software facilitated the statistical meta-analysis.ResultsThe final analysis incorporated data from 14 studies, encompassing a total of 1158 patients, with 555 undergoing HHR and 603 treated with LHR. Follow-up data, ranging from 12 to 88 months, were available in 12 out of the 14 identified studies. The HHR method was associated with a significantly lower risk of seroma (OR = 0.29, P = 0.0004), but a higher risk of wound infection (OR = 2.10, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two techniques regarding operation time, blood loss, intestinal injury, intestinal obstruction, post-operative pain, mesh bulging, and recurrence.ConclusionsThe HHR technique did not demonstrate a clear advantage over LHR in reducing surgical complications, apart from a lower incidence of postoperative seroma. Surgeons with substantial expertise may choose to avoid incidental conversion or intentional hybrid procedures. Further research is needed to clarify the optimal surgical approach for IVH.
| S-EPMC10652588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims
Incisional hernias are a common complication of abdominal surgery and can be defined as gaps in the wall through which abdominal contents can come through. They can cause patients significant pain, affect body image and also complications, including further major abdominal surgery. This study aims to compare two methods of closing abdominal wounds in the midline. There is the traditional technique of mass closure, involving all layers of the abdominal wall being closed symmetrically at regular points along the wound, and the Hughes repair, which involves closing all layers of the abdominal wall being closed at regular points in a near and far distribution (i.e two sutures close to the midline and two sutures further apart). The idea of the Hughes repair is to distribute tension of the suture closing along different points in the wound and therefore reducing the rate of 'cut through' and development of hernias.
Who can participate?
Patients must be 18 or over, and receive surgical treatment for colorectal cancer which requires a midline incision of 5 cm or more.
What does the study involve?
Patients who agree to take part in the study will be invited to consent to take part in the study. This study aims to compare two methods of closing abdominal wounds in the midline. The patients are randomly allocated to mass closure or Hughes repair. At the end of the study we will compare the two groups for pain, body image concerns and also complications.
What are the possible benefits and risk of participating?
There will be no direct benefits to those taking part. There should be benefits to future patients undergoing abdominal surgery as we think that the Hughes Repair will help to prevent condition that causes significant problems for patients. The patients we have selected to be part of the study will be undergoing CT scans as part of their normal follow up for colorectal cancer so there is no additional radiation exposure and they will also be routinely followed up as standard in all hospitals, so there is no additional time expenditure for patients or expense for the NHS. The abdomen closure techniques to be used in the study trial are already used in surgery so there is no danger to patients.
Where will the study run from?
The study has been set up to run from the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, involving the Welsh Barbers Research Group. Swansea Clinical Trials Unit are conducting the trial on behalf of sponsor Cardiff & Vale University Health Board. Participating centres will be UK wide.
When is the study starting and how long is it expected to run for?
Feasibility phase recruited from October 2013 till February 2014. The pilot phase that will run directly into the main phase started in August 2014 and is expected to recruit until February 2018.
Who is funding the study?
The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (UK)
Who is the main contact?
Professor Jared Torkington
HART@wales.nhs.uk
| 2414502 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Fifty patients (5 men and 45 women) in the age group of 25 to 65 years with abdominal incisional hernia were studied. The most common antecedent cause (in 86 per cent patients) was found to be a gynaecological operative procedure done earlier through a lower midline incision. All patients underwent anatomical repair and were followed-up after repair for an average of 18 months (range 6-32 months). The results were reviewed and it was seen that there was evidence of recurrence in 3 patients only.
| S-EPMC5530798 | biostudies-other
Project description:Emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias may be associated with worsen outcome and a significant rate of postoperative complications. There is no consensus on management of complicated abdominal hernias. The main matter of debate is about the use of mesh in case of intestinal resection and the type of mesh to be used. Wound infection is the most common complication encountered and represents an immense burden especially in the presence of a mesh. The recurrence rate is an important topic that influences the final outcome. A World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Consensus Conference was held in Bergamo in July 2013 with the aim to define recommendations for emergency repair of abdominal wall hernias in adults. This document represents the executive summary of the consensus conference approved by a WSES expert panel. In 2016, the guidelines have been revised and updated according to the most recent available literature.
| S-EPMC5545868 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10638550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesIncisional hernias are common complications of midline abdominal closure. The 'Hughes Repair' combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. There is evidence to suggest this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared Hughes repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation. This paper aims to test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a comparison of abdominal wall closure methods following midline incisional surgery for colorectal cancer, in preparation to a definitive randomised controlled trial.Design and settingA feasibility trial (with 1:1 randomisation) conducted perioperatively during colorectal cancer surgery.ParticipantsPatients undergoing midline incisional surgery for resection of colorectal cancer.InterventionsComparison of two suture techniques (Hughes repair or standard mass closure) for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer.Primary and secondary outcomesA 30-patient feasibility trial assessed recruitment, randomisation, deliverability and early safety of the surgical techniques used.ResultsA total of 30 patients were randomised from 43 patients recruited and consented, over a 5-month period. 14 and 16 patients were randomised to arms A and B, respectively. There was one superficial surgical site infection (SSI) and two organ space SSIs reported in arm A, and two superficial SSIs and one complete wound dehiscence in arm B. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions reported in either arm. Independent data monitoring committee found no early safety concerns.ConclusionsThe feasibility trial found no early safety concerns and demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to patients. Progression to the pilot and main phases of the trial has now commenced following approval by the independent data monitoring committee.Trial registration numberISRCTN 25616490.
| S-EPMC5778308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Incisional hernias are common complications of midline closure following abdominal surgery and cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life and increased health care costs. The 'Hughes Repair' combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. This theoretically distributes the load along the incision length as well as across it. There is evidence to suggest that this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared the Hughes Repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation following a midline incision.This is a 1:1 randomised controlled trial comparing two suture techniques for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer. Full ethical approval has been gained (Wales REC 3, MREC 12/WA/0374). Eight hundred patients will be randomised from approximately 20 general surgical units within the United Kingdom. Patients undergoing open or laparoscopic (more than a 5-cm midline incision) surgery for colorectal cancer, elective or emergency, are eligible. Patients under the age of 18 years, those having mesh inserted or undergoing musculofascial flap closure of the perineal defect in abdominoperineal wound closure, and those unable to give informed consent will be excluded. Patients will be randomised intraoperatively to either the Hughes Repair or standard mass closure. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year as assessed by standardised clinical examination. The secondary outcomes include quality of life patient-reported outcome measures, cost-utility analysis, incidence of complete abdominal wound dehiscence and C-POSSUM scores. The incidence of incisional hernia at 1 year, assessed by computerised tomography, will form a tertiary outcome.A feasibility phase has been completed. The results of the study will be used to inform current and future practice and potentially reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation following midline incisions.ISRCTN 25616490 . Registered on 1 January 2012.
| S-EPMC5025615 | biostudies-other