Faculty Bibliography

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).

BACKGROUND:Randomized studies have endorsed nonabsorbable prosthetics for contaminated ventral hernia surgery, yet the broader applicability and impact on patient-reported outcomes are still questioned. Here, we evaluated the long-term outcomes of elective contaminated ventral hernia repairs (based on Centers of Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] wound classification) using real-world data from a multicenter US cohort, focusing on quality of life and postoperative pain. METHODS:The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database was queried for patients undergoing elective contaminated (CDC class II-IV) ventral hernia repair (2013-2023). After propensity matching, we compared long-term differences in patient-reported quality of life and pain scores (by HerQLes and PROMIS questionnaires) among those who underwent repair with nonabsorbable, absorbable synthetic, and biologic mesh. RESULTS:A total of 1,073 patients were included, of whom 920 (86%), 56 (5%), and 97 (9%) underwent repair with nonabsorbable, absorbable synthetic, and biologic mesh, respectively. Among them, the median age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 53-70), and 523 (49%) were male. The median length and width of the defect were 20 cm (IQR 12-25) and 13 cm (IQR 8-16), respectively. A transversus abdominis release was performed in 716 patients (67% of all cases). In most cases, the mesh was positioned in the retro-rectus (85%) and/or the preperitoneal space (45%). Before and after propensity matching (n = 185), the change from baseline in HerQLes and PROMIS scores at 6 months and at 1, 3, 5, and 6 years was comparable between different types of mesh. Lastly, there were no differences in readmission, surgical site infection, or surgical site occurrence at 30 days. Recurrence at 1 year was also comparable among groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In the long term, there were no differences in quality of life or pain scores with nonabsorbable, absorbable synthetic, or biologic mesh for elective ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) ventral hernia repair requires incising the peritoneum from within the abdominal cavity, developing a flap, and placing a reinforcing mesh after fascial closure from the preperitoneal space. We present a novel adaptation to this technique that allows placement of preperitoneal mesh without entering the abdominal cavity. The robotic totally extra- and preperitoneal (R-PeTEP) access for ventral hernia repair is best suited for small to moderate sized ventral hernias with concomitant diastasis recti. METHODS:Our study is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent R-PeTEP from December 2022 to November 2023. A comprehensive description of the surgical technique is included. Patient demographics, hernia characteristics, as well as clinical outcomes are described. RESULTS:A total of 25 patients underwent R-PeTEP for ventral hernia repair with diastasis recti plication. The median age was 55 years (IQR 43.5-63) and 92% (n = 23) were male. The median ASA score was 2 (IQR 1-2) and the median BMI was 30.4 (IQR 29.3-32.8) with 64% (n = 16) percent having a BMI ≥ 30. Median hernia width was 3 cm (IQR 3-4), with a median diastasis recti width of 4 cm (IQR 2.6-4) and length of 15 cm (IQR 11.8-16). The median operative time was 120 min (IQR 116-134). All repairs were reinforced with permanent mesh. Sixty-eight percent of the patients (n = 17) were discharged on the same day. With a median follow-up of 30 days (IQR 16-107), 8% (n = 2) seromas, 16% (n = 4) developed clinically insignificant hematomas, and one patient (4%) developed ileus that was managed conservatively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study establishes the feasibility and safety of R-PeTEP, which provides direct access to the preperitoneal space, avoiding disruption to the posterior rectus sheath, possibly reducing neurovascular bundle injuries, and omitting entry to the abdominal cavity. R-PeTEP facilitates wide flap creation for prosthetic overlap and allows for posterior plication of diastasis recti with little to no mesh fixation with overall excellent preliminary clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Postoperative pancreatic fistula is a severe complication of pancreaticoduodenectomy. Using an externalized pancreatic stent is a potential mitigation strategy not previously studied in Latin America. METHODS:Pancreaticoduodenectomies performed in a single center between 2006 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical variables were collected with a 90-day follow-up according to stent intervention: externalized stent (ES), internal stent (IS), or no stent. Before and after ES implementation (2016) periods were also compared. RESULTS:Out of 237 patients, 77 (32.5 ​%) had an ES, 24 (10.1 ​%) an IS, and 136 (57.4 ​%) none. No difference was found in the overall incidence of POPF. The use of an ES was associated with less type C POPF, despite having an increased risk for fistula development. PD performed after 2016 were also associated with a reduced incidence of type C POPF, surgical reintervention requirement, POPF-associated mortality, and intrahospital stay. CONCLUSIONS:The use of an ES is a low-cost intervention that can mitigate POPF severity in high-risk patients.

INTRODUCTION:This systematic review aims to evaluate the use of machine learning and artificial intelligence in hernia surgery. METHODS:The PRISMA guidelines were followed throughout this systematic review. The ROBINS-I and Rob 2 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:A total of 13 articles were ultimately included for this review, describing the use of machine learning and deep learning for hernia surgery. All studies were published from 2020 to 2023. Articles varied regarding the population studied, type of machine learning or Deep Learning Model (DLM) used, and hernia type. Of the thirteen included studies, all included either inguinal, ventral, or incisional hernias. Four studies evaluated recognition of surgical steps during inguinal hernia repair videos. Two studies predicted outcomes using image-based DMLs. Seven studies developed and validated deep learning algorithms to predict outcomes and identify factors associated with postoperative complications. CONCLUSION:The use of ML for abdominal wall reconstruction has been shown to be a promising tool for predicting outcomes and identifying factors that could lead to postoperative complications.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:The literature indicates that patients with prior pelvic surgery, particularly radical prostatectomy, pose challenges in minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair (IHR). However, there is no conclusive evidence regarding the impact of pelvic surgery on postoperative complications. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of previous prostatectomy in men undergoing MIS IHR. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We searched Cochrane Central, Scopus, SciELO, Lilacs, and PubMed/MEDLINE for studies comparing men undergoing MIS IHR after prostatectomy with men without previous pelvic surgery. Key outcomes evaluated included recurrence, overall postoperative complications, seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection (SSI), conversion rates, and operative time. RESULTS:Out of 402 screened studies, 9 met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, three analyzed totally extraperitoneal (TEP) technique, while four analyzed transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and two presented both techniques together. The analysis comprised 189,183 patients, of which 4551 (2.4%) had a history of prostatectomy. The analysis revealed that post-prostatectomy patients presented higher postoperative complications (3.7% vs. 1.9%; RR 1.9; 95% CI [1.23; 2.94]; P = 0.004) and seroma (1.6% vs. 0.9%; RR 1.58; 95% CI [1.23; 2.04]; P < 0.001) following MIS IHR. Additionally, patients with a previous prostatectomy presented an increased operative time (MD 21.25 min; 95% CI [19.1; 23.4]; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in recurrence (0.98% vs. 0.92%; RR 1.1; 95% CI [0.8; 1.53]; P = 0.54), SSI (0.07% VS. 0.07%; RR 0.99; 95% CI [0.34; 2.9]; P = 0.98), hematoma (3.6% vs. 1.2%; RR 3.18; 95% CI [0.84; 12.1]; P = 0.09), and conversion rates (1.1% vs. 0.9%; RR 1.26; 95% CI [0.91; 1.72]; P = 0.16). However, subgroup analysis of TEP technique in patients with previous prostatectomy showed higher conversion rates (2.4% vs. 0%; RR 20; 95% CI [2.9; 138.2]; P < 0.01). Analysis using funnel plots showed the absence of publication bias in the study outcomes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This comprehensive analysis indicates that patients with a history of prostatectomy undergoing MIS IHR may present higher postoperative complications and an increased operative time. Further comparative studies are needed to evaluate the cumulative impact of MIS IHR in patients with previous prostatectomy.