Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Management of scrotal hernias presents as a common challenge, with operative interventions to address these hernias associated with higher rates of morbidity compared to those of less-complex pathology. Surgeons have advocated for the use of techniques such as primary abandonment of the distal sac as a potential means to reduce complications for operative intervention, with preliminary findings demonstrating feasibility. We sought to assess outcomes related to primary sac abandonment among patients undergoing minimally invasive (MIS) repair of scrotal hernias. METHODS:A review of prospectively maintained databases among two academic hernia centers was conducted to identify patients who underwent MIS inguinal hernia repairs with primary sac abandonment. Patient demographics, hernia risk factors, intraoperative factors, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Short-term outcomes related to patient-reported experiences and surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention were queried. RESULTS:Sixty-seven male patients [median age: 51.6 years; interquartile range (IQR): 45-65 years] underwent inguinal hernia repair with primary sac abandonment. Anatomic polypropylene mesh was used in 98.5% cases. Rates of postoperative complications were low and included postoperative urinary retention (6%), clinically identified or patient-reported seromas/hematomas within a 30-day follow-up period (23.9%), deep venous thrombosis (1.5%), and pelvic hematoma (1.5%). No seromas or hematomas necessitated procedural interventions, with resolution of symptoms within three months of their operation date. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We report a multi-center experience of patients managed with primary abandonment of the sac technique during repair of inguinoscrotal hernias. Utilization of this technique appears to be safe and reproducible with a low burden of short-term complications.

INTRODUCTION:Reinforcement of crural closure with synthetic resorbable mesh has been proposed to decrease recurrence rates after hiatal hernia repair, but continues to be controversial. This systematic review aims to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and intermediate-term results of using biosynthetic mesh to augment the hiatus. METHODS:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed throughout this systematic review. The Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions and Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials tools were used to perform qualitative assessment of all studies included in this review. Recommendations were then summarized for the following pre-defined key items: protocol, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, study design, risk of bias, publication bias, and statistical analysis. RESULTS:The systematic literature search found 520 articles, 101 of which were duplicates and 355 articles were determined to be unrelated to our study and excluded. The full text of the remaining 64 articles was thoroughly assessed. A total of 18 articles (1846 patients) were ultimately included for this review, describing hiatal hernia repair using three different biosynthetic meshes-BIO-A, Phasix ST, and polyglactin mesh. Mean operative time varied from 127 to 223 min. Mean follow up varied from 12 to 54 months. There were no mesh erosions or explants. One mesh-related complication of stenosis requiring reoperation was reported with BIO-A. Studies showed significant improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores, as well as satisfaction with surgery. Recurrence was reported as radiologic or clinical recurrence. Overall, recurrence rate varied from 0.9 to 25%. CONCLUSION:The use of biosynthetic mesh is safe and effective for hiatal hernia repair with low complications rates and high symptom resolution. The reported recurrence rates are highly variable due to significant heterogeneity in defining and evaluating recurrences. Further randomized controlled trials with larger samples and long-term follow-up should be performed to better analyze outcomes and recurrence rates.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Lateral abdominal hernias are inherently challenging surgical entities. As such, there has been an increase in the adoption of robotic platforms to approach these challenging hernias. Our study aims to assess and compare outcomes between open (oLAHR) and robotic (rLAHR) lateral abdominal hernia repair using a national hernia-specific database. METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative was performed to include all adult patients who underwent elective lateral hernia repair. A propensity score match analysis was conducted, and univariate analyses were conducted to compare these two surgical modalities across perioperative timeframes. RESULTS:The database identified 2569 patients. Our analysis matched 665 patients to either the open or robotic groups. The median length of stay, surgical site occurrences (SSO), and surgical site occurrences requiring procedural interventions (SSOPI) were higher in the oLAHR versus the rLAHR group. Overall, oLAHR had a significantly higher rate of having any post-operative complications or any SSO/SSOPI. There was no difference in quality-of-life measures between groups at 30 days and 1 year. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Robotic abdominal hernia repair is a safe alternative compared to the open repair of lateral abdominal hernias with better perioperative outcomes. Despite having a longer operative time, the robotic approach can offer a significantly shorter length of stay and an overall lower rate of complications. Ultimately, there is no difference in the quality-of-life measures both at 30 days and 1 year between the open and robotic approaches.

BACKGROUND:Small bowel obstruction is typically managed nonoperatively; however, refractory small bowel obstructions or closed loop obstructions necessitate operative intervention. Traditionally, laparotomy has long been the standard operative intervention for lysis of adhesions of small bowel obstructions. But as surgeons become more comfortable with minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopy has become a widely accepted intervention for small bowel obstructions. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopy to open surgery in the operative management of small bowel obstruction. METHODS:This is a retrospective analysis of operative small bowel obstruction cases at a single academic medical center from June 2016 to December 2019. Data were obtained from billing data and electronic medical record for patients with primary diagnosis of small bowel obstruction. Postoperative outcomes between the laparoscopic and open intervention groups were compared. The primary outcome was time to return of bowel function. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, VTE, and reoperation rate. RESULTS:The cohort consisted of a total of 279 patients with 170 (61%) and 109 (39%) patients in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively. Patients undergoing laparoscopic intervention had overall shorter median return of bowel function (4 vs 6 days, p = 0.001) and median length of stay (8 vs 13 days, p = 0.001). When stratifying for bowel resection, patients in the laparoscopic group had shorter return of bowel function (5.5 vs 7 days, p = 0.06) and shorter overall length of stay (10 vs 16 days, p < 0.002). Patients in the laparoscopic group who did not undergo bowel resection had an overall shorter median return of bowel function (3 vs 5 days, p < 0.0009) and length of stay (7 vs 10 days, p < 0.006). When comparing surgeons who performed greater than 40% cases laparoscopically to those with fewer than 40%, there was no difference in patient characteristics. There was no significant difference in return of bowel function, length of stay, post-operative mortality, or re-admission laparoscopic preferred or open preferred surgeons. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic intervention for the operative management of small bowel obstruction may provide superior clinical outcomes, shorter return of bowel function and length of stay compared to open operation, but patient selection for laparoscopic intervention is based on surgeon preference rather than patient characteristics.

BACKGROUND:) obese patients after robotic VHR (RVHR). METHODS:) systems. RESULTS:were included in the study. PSM analysis stratified these into 69 patients for each of the class-II and class-III groups. When comparing matched groups, there were no differences in any of the variables across all timeframes, except for a higher rate of Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-based mesh use in the class-III group (39.1% vs 17.4%, p = 0.008). The estimated recurrence-free time was 76.4 months (95% CI = 72.5-80.4) for the class-II group and 80.4 months (95% CI = 78-82.8) for the class-III group. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This multicenter study showed no difference in outcomes after RVHR between matched class-II and class-III obese patients.

INTRODUCTION: Lateral ventral hernia repair (LVHR) is a challenging surgical dilemma due to location, different anatomical considerations, and low volume of cases. Our study aims to compare and assess early 30-day outcomes between open LVHR (oLVHR) and robotic-assisted LVHR (rLVHR) approach.
METHOD(S): A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) was performed to include all adult patients who underwent elective LVHR based on European Hernia Society classification. A 1:1 propensity score match (PSM) analysis was conducted for balanced groups. Univariate analysis was performed to compare the 2 groups (oLVHR and rLVHR) across preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative timeframes.
RESULT(S): ACHQC database identified 2,569 LVHR patients. A PSM analysis stratified 665 patients to each oLVHR and rLVHR group. Median length of stay is higher in the oLVHR 3 days (interquartile range [IQR] 1 to 5) vs rLVHR 1 day (IQR 0 to 2; p < 0.001). The surgical site infection rate was higher in the oLVHR 3% vs 1% (p = 0.006). Surgical site occurrence (SSO) such as wound cellulitis was also found at a higher rate in the oLVHR 21% vs the rLVHR 0% (p < 0.001). Seroma rate was higher in the rLVHR (6.5% vs 5.6%, p < 0.001). oLVHR had 18% postoperative complication compared with rLVHR 12% (p < 0.001). There was no difference in quality-of-life measures (HerQLes and PROMIS pain 3a surveys) between groups at 30 days and 1 year.
CONCLUSION(S): Robotic-assisted LVHR is safe with decreased length of stay and SSO compared with the conventional open approach. However, it does carry a higher seroma rate with no clinical significance

BACKGROUND:During the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical centers had to weigh the benefits and risks of conducting bariatric surgery. Obesity increases the risk of developing severe COVID-19 infections, and therefore, bariatric surgery is beneficial. In contrast, surgical patients who test positive for COVID-19 have higher mortality rates. OBJECTIVE:This study investigates the national prevalence of postoperative pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic in the bariatric surgery population. SETTING/METHODS:The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) database. METHODS:This is a cross-sectional study using the ACS-NSQIP database. The population of concern included patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures. Information was extracted on rate of postoperative pneumonia and other 30-day complications between 2018 and 2020. RESULTS:All baseline characteristics were similar among patients who underwent bariatric surgery between 2018 and 2020. However, there was a 156% increase in postoperative pneumonia in 2020 compared with the previous year. Furthermore, despite the similar postoperative complication rates across the years, there was a statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality in 2020. The multivariate analysis showed that having surgery in 2020 was a statistically significant risk factor for pneumonia development postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS:This study showed a statistically significant increase in the prevalence of postoperative pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic among bariatric surgery patients. Surgical centers must continuously evaluate the risks associated with healthcare-associated exposure to COVID-19 and weigh the benefits of bariatric surgery.