Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:Inguinoscrotal hernias (ISH) pose a challenge to surgeons with consistently higher rates of postoperative complications and recurrence rates. The aim of this study is to report our initial experience and early results with a new technique for inguinoscrotal hernia repair. METHODS:A review of a prospectively maintained multi-center database was conducted in patients who underwent minimally invasive repair using the "primary abandon-of-the-sac" (PAS) technique for inguinoscrotal hernias from March 2021 to July 2022. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed. RESULTS:A total of 76 minimally invasive inguinal hernia repairs were performed. In 70 patients (92%) C-PAS was used as the technique to abandon the sac while in the remaining 6 patients, "pirate-eye-patch" technique was used. Median hernia ring was 3 (IQR 2.5-3.5) cm and median hernia sac was 9.5 (8-10.8) cm. Median operative time was 70 min (IQR 56-96). Seroma was present in 22 (28.9%) patients 7 days after surgery. Most had seroma only in the inguinal area (n = 19; 25%). Thirty days after surgery, 12 (15.8%) patients still had seroma in the inguinal area and 6 (7.9%) in the inguinoscrotal area. Ninety days after surgery, four (5.3%) patients had inguinal seroma, 2 (2.6%) scrotal seromas and 3 (3.9%) inguinoscrotal seromas. The size of the hernia sac was not associated with seroma formation 7 days after surgery (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.89-1.2; P = 0.461) in the multivariate logistic regression. BMI was also not associated with seroma formation (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.74-1.06; P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS:Planned abandon of the hernia sac is an interesting alternative and is associated with a low rate of complications and acceptable seroma formation rates.

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.

BACKGROUND:In the past years, there has been increasing evidence that supports the use of permanent mesh in contaminated wounds. Given this increased evidence, the indications to opt for slowly absorbable "biosynthetic" prostheses have been questioned. To address this, we compared the outcomes of slowly absorbable mesh in contaminated cases in a well-matched multicentric cohort. METHODS:The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) database was queried for patients undergoing elective ventral hernia repair in Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-III operations (2013-2022). We compared demographics, hernia characteristics, and postoperative outcomes among types of mesh. We used propensity score matching to adjust for sex, diabetes, body mass index, smoking status, and operative time between mesh groups. Patients within other CDC classes and those with mesh positioned elsewhere than retro-rectus/preperitoneal space were excluded. RESULTS:A total of 760 patients were included in the analysis. Slowly absorbable synthetic mesh (SA) was utilized in only 7% of the cases, while permanent (P) and biologic (B) mesh in 77% and 16%, respectively. After matching, 255 patients were studied. There was no difference in surgical site occurrence (8% SA, 16% P, 10% B, p = 0.27), surgical site infection (20% SA, 17% P, 12% B p = 0.54), surgical site occurrence requiring intervention (18% SA, 13% P, 14% B p = 0.72), readmission (12% SA, 14% P, 12% B, p = 0.90), or reoperation (8% SA, 2% P, 4% B, p = 0.14) at 30 days. In patients with 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in recurrence among groups (20% SA, 26% P, 24% B p = 0.90). CONCLUSION:Based on our findings, SA has comparable outcomes to other types of mesh, particularly when an optimal retro-rectus repair is performed.

Mesh suture was initially developed and investigated to overcome suture pull-through in hernia repair. It has a large area compared to standard suture which distributes the load in tissue, reducing stress at the suture/tissue interface and preventing suture from cutting through tissue or the mesh. This report describes our early experience using the new T-line® mesh (Deep Blue Medical Advances, Durham, NC, USA) in patients with incisional and primary ventral hernia repairs. This is a descriptive, retrospective study in 18 patients who underwent abdominal wall repair with T-Line® mesh from November 2020 to November 2021 in three academic centers. T-Line® is a novel moderate-weight macroporous, polypropylene mesh with extensions that are 29 times the cross-sectional area of #0 polypropylene suture. They can be sewn into fascia to anchor the mesh with no need for suture tackers or other devices to fixate the mesh. The median age of the patients was 56.5 years (range 25-83) and the median BMI was 31.7 kg/m2 (range 23.6-51). Twelve patients (66.7%) had primary hernias, and 11 (61.1%) had a recurrent hernia. The median defect area was 117.5 cm2 (range 4-390) and the median mesh area was 449.5 cm2 (range 130-600). The mesh position was onlay in 16 cases (88.9%) and sublay in 2 cases (11.1%). The median operative time was 247 minutes (range 104-395). The median length of stay was six days (range 0-21) with no significant in-hospital complications. One patient had a surgical site infection (5.5%) and two patients developed seromas (11.1%). There were no early hernia recurrences with a median follow-up of 28 days (range 8-307). The T-Line® mesh was shown to be safe and effective for patients with ventral hernia in the short term.

Open onlay ventral hernia repair is still one of the most-used surgical techniques for the repair of hernias worldwide. The robotic anterior component separation technique uses the surgeon's usual anatomical expertise on onlay mesh placement with the manipulation and advantages of minimally invasive surgery. It maintains the precepts of reestablishment the midline integrity and insertion of mesh in the preaponeurotic space, without contact with the viscera. The use of this technique is simple and quite reproducible if you compare it with other techniques. Also, the time spent in surgery does not last long.

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.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:This study examines referral patterns to surgical clinics from the emergency department and the impact of sociodemographic factors on adherence. METHODS:Patients from 2017 to 2021 were identified who had a referral placed to surgical specialties from the ED. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had a referral to surgery placed during an ED visit but who showed up to surgery clinic visit within 60 days of referral placement. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS:Referrals were made for 45,237 patients overall and 4130 for general surgery specifically. 44% showed up to general surgery clinic visit. In univariate and multivariate analysis, those who showed up to clinic were older, tended to be female, had a lower social economic status, had Medicaid or Medicare insurance and had more comorbidities compared to those who did not show up. Asians and Hispanics were more likely to show up to clinic compared to Whites. CONCLUSIONS:Assigning navigators in the ED to follow-up with patients who are younger and healthier, with private insurances who have existing PCPs to ensure they follow up as advised is a potential targeted intervention to improve clinic adherence.

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.