Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Posterior component separation with transversus abdominis release (TAR) is a valuable adjunct to address incisional hernia defects. Currently, bilateral docking is a standard technique for robotic TAR. The aim of this study is to describe our technique for extended totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair with bilateral TAR through a bottom single-dock robotic approach for hernias at the level of the umbilicus or higher. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed a case series of patients who underwent robotic eTEP repair with bilateral TAR using a single bottom docking between November 2021 and November 2023. A comprehensive description of our patient selection, surgical technique, and short-term clinical outcomes is reported. RESULTS:Ten patients with incisional hernias were included. Their median age was 55 years (IQR: 49.5 to 61.25), 70% were male, the median BMI was 27.25 kg/m (IQR: 22.95 to 33.53), and ASA class was ≥2 in 80%. Median hernia width was 10 cm (IQR: 6.75 to 12.25) and length 11 cm (IQR: 9.25 to 16.25). The median operative time was 178.5 minutes (IQR: 153.75 to 222), and the length of stay was 1 day (IQR: 0.75 to 1.75). At a median follow-up of 5 months (IQR: 2.6 to 9.7), 20% of patients developed a surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Bilateral TAR using a single bottom dock is a feasible and safe adjunct to robotic eTEP ventral hernia repair in appropriately selected patients.

Schistosomiasis is a parasitic disease caused by blood flukes commonly found in sub-Saharan Africa and select other areas in Asia and the Americas. The disease can manifest in a wide range of acute and chronic conditions, rarely presenting as acute appendicitis. Herein we report a case of a 36-year-old female patient from a nonendemic area (New York City) with a history of travel presenting with acute appendicitis secondary to instestinal schistosomiasis.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:To compare laparoscopic and ventral hernia repair (VHR) in the last 5 years in the United States utilizing the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) database. MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the ACHQC database was performed to include all adult patients that underwent laparoscopic and robotic VHR in the last 5 years. Univariate analysis was performed to compare outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches across perioperative and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:ACHQC database identified 11,096 patients with midline hernias who underwent VHR with mesh. The Laparoscopic group with patients from 2018 to 2023 (LAP) had 2,063 patients, and the robotic group (ROBO) had 9,033 patients. There was no difference in sex, age, BMI, DM, smoking status and COPD between groups. Median hernia width was 4 cm (IQR 2-6) in the ROBO group and 3 cm (IQR 2-5) in the LAP group (p < 0.001). Incisional hernia was higher in the ROBO group 5,259 (58%) versus 1,099 (53%) in the LAP group (p < 0.001). Recurrent hernia was more common in the ROBO group when compared with the LAP group (p < 0.001). Both groups had more permanent synthetic mesh. Retromuscular repair was higher in the ROBO group, 3,201 (37.6%) versus 68 (4.2%) in the LAP group (p < 0.001). The intraperitoneal repair was higher in the LAP group 1,363 (83%) versus 2,925 (34%) in the ROBO group (p < 0.001) Transversus Abdominis Release (TAR) was higher in the ROBO group 1,314 (14.5%) versus 5 (0.2%) in the LAP group (p < 0.001). Fascial closure was higher in the ROBO group (8,649; 96.5% versus 1,359; 67.3% in the LAP group p < 0.001). Regarding mesh fixation, regular suture was higher in the ROBO group 92% versus 61% in the LAP group (p < 0.001). Tacks (p < 0.001) was higher in the LAP group. The ROBO group had more patients with an operative time of 240+ minutes when compared with the LAP group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in 30-days readmission rates, recurrence, reoperation, overall postoperative complications, 30-day SSI, SSO, seroma and SSOPI between the groups. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The Robotic approach was associated with more technically challenging ventral hernia repairs with low complication rates over time. However, no differences in postoperative complications were found between the groups.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Closure of large hernia defects with minimally invasive surgery has long-been a challenge. Barbed sutures have helped us bridge this technical gap, but their off-label use is not well studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We describe a suturing technique for minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (MIS-VHR) termed "progressive defect tensioning" and explore its theoretical advantages. Progressive defect tensioning utilizes barbed sutures to progressively and evenly re-approximate the fascia along the entire defect length. Tension is then sequentially applied to each throw, distributing the load across multiple anchor points along the closure. This redistribution of tension is explained using a physics model to depict its theoretical benefit. We also explore how biomechanical properties, such as tissue creep and hysteresis, impact closure of complex defects. RESULTS:Our initial, proof-of-concept cohort of 12 patients with hernias larger than 10 cm undergoing MIS-VHR had acceptable perioperative outcomes compared to the literature. CONCLUSIONS:Ultimately, progressive defect tensioning leverages the properties of barbed sutures and the biomechanics of fascia to achieve optimal tension distribution during MIS-VHR.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair has become increasingly accepted, demonstrating superior outcomes over open procedures in postoperative complications. However, certain postoperative complications, such as seroma, remain a dilemma, with many attributing it to the management of the hernia sac. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the reduction versus abandonment of the hernia sac during laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. MATERIAL AND METHODS/METHODS:Cochrane, Scopus, SciELO, and PubMed were searched for studies comparing reduction and abandonment of the hernia sac. Our primary outcome was seroma. Secondary outcomes were overall complications, postoperative pain, surgical site infection, recurrence, hospital length of stay (LOS), and operative time. We performed a subgroup analysis of transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) techniques. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio. RESULTS:2388 studies were screened, and seven studies were included, comprising 3153 patients, of which 916 (29%) were in the abandonment group. We found higher seroma rates for the abandonment group (RR 1.52; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.89; P < 0.001). No differences were found in overall complications (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42; P = 0.61), postoperative pain (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.46 to 2.87; P = 0.76), recurrence (RR 2.67; 95% CI 0.51 to 14.05; P = 0.25), operative time (MD - 4.45 min; 95% CI - 12.77 to 3.86; P = 0.29), and LOS (MD -0.06 days; 95% CI - 0.14 to 0.02; P = 0.14) between both groups. Subgroup analysis of seroma showed no differences between the groups when analyzing TAPP (19.3% vs. 13%; RR 1.65; 95% CI 0.91 to 2.99; P = 0.1) and TEP (9% vs. 4.3%; RR 1.69; 95% CI 0.62 to 4.6; P = 0.3) procedures. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic review and meta-analysis support that hernia sac abandonment may be associated with increased early seroma rates following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, but limited data are available for technique-specific analyses.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Individual studies indicate poorer outcomes for smokers after hernia repair. Previous meta-analyses have examined the impact of smoking on specific outcomes such as recurrence and surgical site infection, but there has been a lack of comprehensive consensus or systematic review on this subject. Addressing this gap, our study undertakes a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of smoking on the outcomes of ventral hernia repair (VHR) and inguinal hernia repair. SOURCE/METHODS:A thorough search of Cochrane Central, Scopus, SciELO, and PubMed/MEDLINE, focusing on studies that examined the effect of smoking on inguinal and VHR outcomes was conducted. Key outcomes evaluated included recurrence, reoperation, surgical site occurrences (SSO), surgical site infection (SSI), and seroma. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS/RESULTS:Out of 3296 screened studies, 42 met the inclusion criteria. These comprised 25 studies (69,295 patients) on VHR and 17 studies (204,337 patients) on inguinal hernia repair. The analysis revealed that smokers had significantly higher rates of recurrence (10.4% vs. 9.1%; RR 1.48; 95% CI [1.15; 1.90]; P < 0.01), SSO (13.6% vs. 12.7%; RR 1.44; 95% CI [1.12; 1.86]; P < 0.01) and SSI (6.6% vs. 4.2%; RR 1.64; 95% CI [1.38; 1.94]; P < 0.01) following VHR. Additionally, smokers undergoing inguinal hernia repair showed higher recurrence (9% vs. 8.7%; RR 1.91; 95% CI [1.21; 3.01]; P < 0.01), SSI (0.6% vs. 0.3%; RR 1.6; 95% CI [1.21; 2.0]; P < 0.001), and chronic pain (9.9% vs. 10%; RR 1.24; 95% CI [1.06; 1.45]; P < 0.01) rates. No significant differences were observed in seroma (RR 2.63; 95% CI [0.88; 7.91]; P = 0.084) and reoperation rates (RR 1.48; 95% CI [0.77; 2.85]; P = 0.236) for VHR, and in reoperation rates (RR 0.99; 95% CI [0.51; 1.91]; P = 0.978) for inguinal hernias between smokers and non-smokers. Analysis using funnel plots and Egger's test showed the absence of publication bias in the study outcomes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This comprehensive meta-analysis found statistically significant increases in recurrence rates, and immediate postoperative complications, such as SSO and SSI following inguinal and VHR. Also, our subgroup analysis suggests that the MIS approach seems to be protective of adverse outcomes in the smokers group. However, our findings suggest that these findings are not of clinical relevance, so our data do not support the necessity of smoking cessation before hernia surgery. More studies are needed to elucidate the specific consequences of smoking in both inguinal and ventral hernia repair. PROSPERO REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:ID CRD42024517640.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Recent guidelines indicate the use of mesh in UHR for defects > 1 cm, as it reduces recurrence, with 10% recurrence rate compared to up to 54.5% with primary closure. However, Nguyen et al. shows that primary closure is still widely performed in UHR, especially for small defects (1-2 cm), for which there is no published data to determine the optimal approach. In addition, previous meta-analysis by Madsen et al. comparing mesh repair with primary closure in UHR didn't exclude emergency conditions and recurrent hernias; also, didn't report subgroup analysis on hernia defect size. Thus, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the mesh repairs vs. primary closure of the defect in an open elective primary UHR. METHODS:We searched for studies comparing mesh with suture in open UHR in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Scielo, and Lilacs from inception until October 2023. Studies with patients ≤ 18 years old, with recurrent or emergency conditions were excluded. Outcomes were recurrence, seroma, hematoma, wound infection, and hospital length of stay. Subgroup analysis was performed for: (1) RCTs only, and (2) hernia defects smaller than 2 cm. We used RevMan 5.4. for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics, and random effect was used if I² > 25%. RESULTS: = 15%) in the overall analysis, with no differences after performing subgroup analysis of RCTs. No differences were seen regarding hematoma and hospital length of stay. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The use of mesh during UHR is associated with significantly lower incidence of recurrence in a long-term follow-up compared to the suture repair, reinforcing the previous indications of the guidelines. Additionally, despite the overall analysis showing higher risk of seroma and wound infection for the mesh repair, no differences were seen after subgroup analysis of RCTs. STUDY REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:A review protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024476854).