ABDOMINAL INCISIONAL HERNIAS - A REVIEW OF 50 OPERATED PATIENTS.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rai RS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5530798 | biostudies-other | 1996 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
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-EPMC3936125 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3936126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProphylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during closure of abdominal wall incisions has been proposed in patients with increased risk for development of incisional hernias (IHs). As part of the BioMesh consensus project, a systematic literature review has been performed to detect those studies where MAR was performed with a non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic).MethodsA computerized search was performed within 12 databases (Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, Pubmed publisher, Lilacs, Scielo, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google Scholar) with appropriate search terms. Qualitative evaluation was performed using the MINORS score for cohort studies and the Jadad score for randomized clinical trials (RCTs).ResultsFor midline laparotomy incisions and stoma reversal wounds, two RCTs, two case-control studies, and two case series were identified. The studies were very heterogeneous in terms of mesh configuration (cross linked versus non-cross linked), mesh position (intraperitoneal versus retro-muscular versus onlay), surgical indication (gastric bypass versus aortic aneurysm), outcome results (effective versus non-effective). After qualitative assessment, we have to conclude that the level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of biological meshes for prevention of IHs is very low. No comparative studies were found comparing biological mesh with synthetic non-absorbable meshes for the prevention of IHs.ConclusionThere is no evidence supporting the use of non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic) for prevention of IHs when closing a laparotomy in high-risk patients or in stoma reversal wounds. There is no evidence that a non-permanent absorbable mesh should be preferred to synthetic non-absorbable mesh, both in clean or clean-contaminated surgery.
| S-EPMC5035749 | 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: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:PurposeTo provide an overview of the available literature on prevention of incisional hernias after stoma reversal, with the use of prophylactic meshes.MethodsA literature search of Pubmed, MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. Search terms for stoma, enterostomy, mesh, prophylaxis and hernia were used. Search was updated to December 31th 2018. No time limitations were used, while English, Geman, Dutch and French were used as language restrictions. The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernia formation after stoma reversal. Secondary outcomes were mesh-related complications. Data on study design, sample size, patient characteristics, stoma and mesh characteristics, duration of follow-up and outcomes were extracted from the included articles.ResultsA number of 241 articles were identified and three studies with 536 patients were included. A prophylactic mesh was placed in 168 patients to prevent incisional hernias after stoma reversal. Follow-up ranged from 10 to 21 months. The risk of incisional hernia in case of prophylactic mesh placement was significantly lower in comparison to no mesh placement (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.27, p?<?0.001, I2?=?0%, CI 0-91.40%). No differences in surgical site infections were detected between the groups.ConclusionsThe use of a prophylactic mesh seems to reduce the risk on incisional hernias after stoma reversal and therefore mesh reinforcement should be considered after stoma reversal.
| S-EPMC6661031 | 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
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:IntroductionAbdominal wall herniation (AWH) is an increasing problem for patients, surgeons, and healthcare providers. Surgical-site specific outcomes, such as infection, recurrence, and mesh explantation, are improving; however, successful repair still exposes the patient to what is often a complex major operation aimed at improving quality of life. Quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes, such as aesthetics, pain, and physical and emotional functioning, are less often and less well reported. We reviewed QOL tools currently available to evaluate their suitability.MethodsA systematic review of the literature in compliance with PRISMA guidelines was performed between 1st January 1990 and 1st May 2019. English language studies using validated quality-of-life assessment tool, whereby outcomes using this tool could be assessed were included.ResultsHeterogeneity in the QOL tool used for reporting outcome was evident throughout the articles reviewed. AWH disease-specific tools, hernia-specific tools, and generic tools were used throughout the literature with no obviously preferred or dominant method identified.ConclusionDespite increasing acknowledgement of the need to evaluate QOL in patients with AWH, no tool has become dominant in this field. Assessment, therefore, of the impact of certain interventions or techniques on quality of life remains difficult and will continue to do so until an adequate standardised outcome measurement tool is available.
| S-EPMC8055629 | biostudies-literature