Bioabsorbable Mesh Research Articles

Lessons learned from revision procedures: a case series pleading for reinforcement of the anterior hiatus in recurrent hiatal hernia.

Hiatal Hernia (HH) is a common structural defect of the diaphragm. Laparoscopic repair with suturing of the hiatal pillars followed by fundoplication has become standard practice. In an attempt to lower HH recurrence rates, mesh reinforcement, commonly located at the posterior site of the esophageal hiatus, has been used. However, effectiveness of posterior mesh augmentation is still up to debate. There is a lack of understanding of the mechanism of recurrence requiring further investigation. We investigated the anatomic location of HH recurrences in an attempt to assess why HH recurrence rates remain high despite various attempts with mesh reinforcement. A retrospective case series of prospectively collected data from patients with hiatal hernia repair between 2012 and 2020 was performed. In total, 54 patients with a recurrent hiatal hernia operation were included in the study. Video clips from the revision procedure were analyzed by a surgical registrar and senior surgeon to assess the anatomic location of recurrent HH. For the assessment, the esophageal hiatus was divided into four equal quadrants. Additionally, patient demographics, hiatal hernia characteristics, and operation details were collected and analyzed. 54 patients were included. The median time between primary repair and revision procedure was 25months (IQR 13-95, range 0-250). The left-anterior quadrant was involved in 43 patients (80%), the right-anterior quadrant in 21 patients (39%), the left-posterior quadrant in 21 patients (39%), and the right-posterior quadrant in 10 patients (19%). In this study, hiatal hernia recurrences occured most commonly at the left-anterior quadrant of the hiatus, however, posterior recurrences were not uncommon. Based on our results, we hypothesize that both posterior and anterior hiatal reinforcement might be a suitable solution to lower the recurrence rate of hiatal hernia. A randomized controlled trial using a circular, bio-absorbable mesh has been initiated to test our hypothesis.

Hiatal hernia repair after previous laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BackgroundSymptomatic hiatal hernia (HH) with pouch migration after previous laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is an uncommon complication, with limited extant evidence for the utility of surgical repair. ObjectiveTo evaluate the presentation and resolution of symptoms in patients with HH repair after previous RYGB. SettingMulticenter University Hospital. MethodsA retrospective review was conducted from 2010 to 2022. Patients with prior RYGB who were undergoing subsequent isolated HH repair were included. Patients undergoing incidental HH repair during concomitant revisional bariatric surgery were excluded. Baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes were evaluated and presented as medians (25th–75th percentile). ResultsForty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. The time from RYGB to HH repair was 59 months (39–88). Body mass index at HH repair was 31 kg/m2 (27–39). The most common presenting symptoms of hernia were dysphagia (52%), gastric reflux (39%), and abdominal pain (36%). All HH repairs were completed with a minimally invasive approach (98% laparoscopic, 2% robotic). Nonabsorbable suture was used in 98% of patients, with bioabsorbable mesh in 30%. At a median 28-day (12–117) follow-up, 70% of patients reported full symptom resolution and 23% partial resolution. At follow-up, 2 patients had radiologic HH recurrence, with 1 requiring reoperation. ConclusionsThis is the largest series of isolated HH repair for symptomatic pouch migration after previous RYGB. Common presenting symptoms are dysphagia and reflux, and surgical repair yields a high rate of symptom resolution in the short term. Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate the durability of this intervention.

Condylar Changes Following Mandibular Setback Using Manual Guidance

The purpose of this retrospective study was to analyze changes in the position of the condyles following mandibular setback surgery with manual guidance. The study included 28 patients with mandibular prognathism who underwent mandibular setback surgery using manual guidance with a bioabsorbable mesh for mandibular fixation, and changes in the position of the center of the condylar head were compared at three time points: before surgery (T0), within 1 week after surgery (T1), and 6 months after surgery (T2). The results showed significant lateral, anterior, and inferior movements of the condyle at T1 compared to T0, with an average movement of 0.66 ± 0.84 mm along the x-axis, −1.27 ± 0.82 mm along the y-axis, and −0.20 ± 0.69 mm along the z-axis, with a 1.77 ± 0.87 mm linear distance (p < 0.05). At T2, the condylar position had mainly changed inferiorly along the y-axis (−0.17 ± 0.48 mm) (p < 0.05) compared to that at T0. The change in the position along the x-axis (−0.14 ± 0.57 mm), z-axis (−0.05 ± 0.68 mm), and linear distance (0.85 ± 0.57 mm) at T2 was not significantly different from that in the condylar position at T0 (p > 0.05). The study suggests that significant anterior–lateral–inferior condylar movement occurs within 1 week after mandibular setback surgery using manual guidance, but the condyle returns to its original position over time, which is clinically acceptable.

A Single-Institution 5-Year Retrospective Analysis of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy Staple-Line Reinforcement: Bioabsorbable Mesh Versus Oversewing.

Background: Staple-line reinforcement has been used to decrease complications such as staple-line bleeding (SLB) and staple-line leaks (SLLs) in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG). There is little data comparing bioabsorbable mesh reinforcement (BMR) with oversewing the staple line (OSL). The aim of our study was to compare BMR with OSL in SG. Materials and Methods: This is a single-institution retrospective analysis comparing risks and benefits of BMR (group a) with those of OSL (group b) for SG staple-line reinforcement between 2015 and 2020. Results: In total, 857 patients were identified. There were 452 (52.74%) in group a and 405 (47.26%) in group b. SLB requiring transfusion occurred in 6 (1.32%) patients in group a and 6 (1.48%) patients in group b, NS (P = .848). Zero SLL was identified in either group. One-year mean direct cost of SG in group a was $7881 compared with $6677 in group b. Conclusion: This retrospective study showed that there was low risk of bleeding or leak with either technique of staple-line reinforcement and there was no significant difference in SLB or leak rate with bioabsorbable mesh versus oversewing. The use of bioabsorbable mesh was more expensive than oversewing.

A 13-year experience with biologic and biosynthetic absorbable mesh reinforced laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair.

Mesh reinforced cruroplasty during laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair remains controversial due to wide variation in surgical technique and mesh composition. This study aims to review outcomes and rates of recurrence following laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPEHR) with mesh reinforced cruroplasty utilizing absorbable mesh at a single institution. A retrospective review of all patients who underwent LPEHR with mesh was performed. Medical records were reviewed for patient reported, radiographic or endoscopic evidence of recurrence, defined as > 2cm of vertical intrathoracic stomach. If no studies were available for review, patients were considered to have no recurrence. Outcomes and mesh-related complications were also reviewed. Between 10/2008 and 9/2021, 473 patients underwent LPEHR with absorbable mesh; 1.3% type 2 hernias, 86.0% type 3 hernias, 12.7% type 4 hernias. Three types of mesh were used: initially biologic mesh (n = 83), then heavyweight synthetic bioabsorbable mesh (n = 261), and finally lightweight synthetic bioabsorbable mesh (n = 111). There were no significant differences in age, ASA, BMI, gender, smoking status, chronic steroid use, preoperative acid suppression, hernia type, or recurrent hernia between groups. There were no significant differences in 30-day postoperative outcomes. Reflux Symptom Index, GERD-HRQL, and Dysphagia Scores at 1- and 2-year postoperative timepoints were not significantly different. The overall recurrence rate was 16.7%, with no significant differences in recurrence rates between biologic, heavyweight or lightweight biosynthetic absorbable mesh through 2 years after surgery. A shorter median time to recurrence (10months, p = 0.016) was seen in the lightweight group. LPEHR with absorbable mesh reinforced cruroplasty is feasible and safe, with equivalent patient-reported outcomes, including dysphagia, up to 2-years postop regardless of mesh choice. No significant differences in recurrence rates between biologic, heavyweight, or lightweight synthetic bioabsorbable mesh were seen up to 2 years after LPEHR.

P-047 REDUCING THE RISK OF MESH EROSION IN A MODIFIED RETROMUSCULAR SUGARBAKER TECHNIQUE FOR PARASTOMAL HERNIA REPAIR

Abstract Aim Modified retromuscular Sugarbaker procedure (SP) is a promising approach for parastomal hernia repair. However, its potential complications, including the risk of mesh erosion, encourages us to develop other techniques of mesh placement. We propose an addition to this parastomal retromuscular mesh reinforcement. Materials and Methods We present the case of a 53 year old-woman, with a history of proctocolectomy with end ileostomy due to anal adenocarcinoma, undergoing emergency surgery due to parastomal hernia incarceration. Sugarbaker repair was performed placing inlay composite mesh fixed with reabsorbable tackers. Subsequently, the patient was admitted for recurrent parastomal hernia and midline ventral hernia surgery. Results We performed a modified retromuscular SP as described by Pauli in 2016. After midline laparotomy, hernia content was reduced and extensive retromuscular dissection with transversus abdominis release (TAR) performed, placing a wide retromuscular polypropylene mesh prior to closing parastomal fascial defect. Stoma was parietalized from lateral to medial in an S-shaped configuration. We placed a segment of bioabsorbable mesh covering the parietalized stoma to avoid direct contact with the polypropylene mesh. No recurrence was detected 3 months after surgery, pending reassessment at 6 months. Conclusions This repair provides the benefits of an open posterior component separation with TAR, maintaining the biomechanics of a functional abdominal wall, whilst offering the advantages of mesh reinforcement in a modified Sugarbaker configuration. Our experience with this novel technique seems promising. Rate of mesh erosion is yet to be defined and requires long-term studies before widespread adoption, with special concern on mesh placement.

Laparoscopic diaphragm repair with bioabsorbable mesh in congenital and acquired diaphragmatic hernia

Background and Aim: Congenital or acquired diaphragmatic hernias are both possible. The present study aimed to investigate the superiority of laparoscopic surgery over open repair of congenital diaphragmatic hernias with bioabsorbable mesh in congenital and acquired diaphragmatic hernia. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on 7 diaphragmatic hernia cases in the General Surgery Unit of Federal Government Polyclinic Hospital, Islamabad from January 2015 to December 2022. Diaphragmatic hernia was diagnosed and confirmed on CT scan. Patients with Bochdalek hernia (BH), right-sided eventration of diaphragm, and left eventration of diaphragm (ED) cases were enrolled. Individual demographic details, clinical manifestations, hernia description, treatment modalities, and complications were recorded. Results: The overall mean age was 42 years with an age range 30-62 years. Of the total cases, there were 6 (85.7%) male and 1 (14.3%) female. The incidence of Bochdalek hernia (BH), left-sided ED, and right-sided ED was 2 (28.6%), 4 (57.1%), and 1 (14.3%) respectively. The major defect on left and right side was 15× 7 cm and 15× 8 cm respectively.

Does the use of bioabsorbable mesh for hiatal hernia repair at the time of bariatric surgery reduce recurrence rates? A meta-analysis.

Anywhere from 16% to 37% of patients undergoing bariatric and metabolic surgery are estimated to have a hiatal hernia. To address the lack of long-term data showing the efficacy of bioabsorbable mesh in reducing the recurrence of hiatal hernia in patients who undergo bariatric surgery, we evaluated the world literature and performed a meta-analysis. To evaluate hiatal hernia recurrence rates after placement of bioabsorbable mesh in bariatric patients. Meta-analysis of world literature. We performed a literature search using PubMed and MEDLINE with search terms including "hiatal hernia recurrence," "bariatric surgery," "bioabsorbable mesh," "Gore BIO-A," and "trimethylene carbonate." Analysis was conducted to compare surgical time, length of stay, recurrence rate, hernia size, and changes in body mass index before and after surgery between mesh-group (MG) and nonmesh (NM) patients. The meta-analysis was described using standardized mean difference, weighted mean difference, effect size, and 95% confidence interval (CI). An I2 statistic was computed to assess heterogeneity. Twelve studies with 1351 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Four studies had both an MG and an NM group. There were 668 patients in the MG and 683 patients in the NM group. Hernia size noted in the NM group (7 cm2) was compared with that in the MG (6.5 cm2) (95% CI: 3.89-9.14; P = .86). The MG had fewer recurrences than the NM group (effect size, 2% versus 14%; 95% CI: -.26 to -.02; P = .027). The average follow-up was 28.8 months for the MG and 32.8 months for the NM group. Repair with bioabsorbable mesh at the time of the index bariatric surgery is more effective at reducing the recurrence rate of hiatal hernia than suture cruroplasty. Further studies investigating the long-term outcomes of bioabsorbable mesh placed at the time of bariatric surgery are needed.

Does bioabsorbable mesh reduce hiatal hernia recurrence rates? A meta-analysis.

The use of bioabsorbable mesh at the hiatus is controversial. Long-term data are scant. We evaluated the world literature and performed a meta-analysis to determine if these meshes were effective in reducing recurrence. A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and ClinicalKey. We evaluated articles reporting on both Bio-A™ (polyglycolic acid:trimethylene carbonate-PGA:TMC) and Phasix™ (poly-4-hydroxybutyrate-P4HB) used at the hiatus. The DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used to estimate the overall pooled treatment effect along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Similar analysis was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes, i.e., recurrence rate, mean surgical time, mean hospital stays and mean follow-up duration between non-Mesh and Mesh group. The I2 statistic was computed to assess the heterogeneity in effect sizes across the studies. A total of 21 studies (12 mesh studies with 963 subjects and 9 non-mesh studies with 617 subjects) were included to conduct the meta-analysis. There was one article reporting outcomes on P4HB mesh (73 subjects) and 11 on PGA:TMC mesh (890 subjects). The bioabsorbable mesh group had a significantly lower recurrence rate compared to the non-mesh group (8% vs. 18%; 95%CI 0.08-0.17), pooled p-value < 0.0001. Surgery time was shorter in the mesh group compared to the non-mesh group (136.4min vs. 150min) but not statistically significant (p = 0.54). There tended to be a more extended follow-up period after surgery in the non-mesh group compared to the mesh group (27 vs. 25.8months, range 10.8-54months); but not statistically significant (ES: 27.4; 95%CI 21.6-33.3; p = 0.92). Hiatal hernia repair with bioabsorbable mesh is more effective at reducing hernia recurrence rate in the mid-term than simple suture cruroplasty. Further studies investigating the long-term outcomes and P4HB mesh are needed.

Evaluation of the Safety of a GalaFLEX-AlloDerm Construct in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is gaining in popularity. Acellular dermal matrices are an integral part of prepectoral reconstruction. However, large quantities of acellular dermal matrix are required for total implant coverage, and the cost of acellular dermal matrices could be a deterrent to reconstruction. To minimize the cost, the authors have resorted to the use of a bioabsorbable mesh, GalaFLEX, as a partial replacement to acellular dermal matrices. This study evaluates the comparative safety of using a GalaFLEX-AlloDerm construct versus AlloDerm alone in prepectoral reconstruction. Consecutive patients who underwent immediate, expander-implant, prepectoral breast reconstruction were included in this retrospective study. Patients were stratified into two groups: those who received the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm combination versus AlloDerm alone. In GalaFLEX-AlloDerm reconstructions, the lower third of the expander was covered by the AlloDerm, whereas the rest of the expander was covered by GalaFLEX. Complications following reconstruction were compared between the groups. AlloDerm alone was used in 128 patients (249 breasts) and GalaFLEX-AlloDerm was used in 135 patients (250 breasts). The rate of any complication was 7.6 percent in the AlloDerm-alone group and 6.4 percent in the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm group. The rate of infection, major skin necrosis, seroma, capsular contracture, prosthesis exposure/extrusion, and prosthesis loss were less than or equal to 3.0 percent in the GalaFLEX-AlloDerm group and did not differ significantly from those in the AlloDerm-only group. GalaFLEX bioabsorbable matrix is a less costly alternative to acellular dermal matrices in two-stage, prepectoral reconstruction with comparable safety outcomes. Further long-term data and clinical experience are needed to better understand the safety of this matrix for use in breast reconstruction. Therapeutic, III.

A142 A single-institution 5-year retrospective analysis of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy staple-line reinforcement: Bioabsorbable Mesh vs Oversewing

A142 A single-institution 5-year retrospective analysis of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy staple-line reinforcement: Bioabsorbable Mesh vs Oversewing

A065 Does the use of bio-absorbable mesh for hiatal hernia repair at the time of bariatric surgery reduce recurrence rates? A meta-analysis

A065 Does the use of bio-absorbable mesh for hiatal hernia repair at the time of bariatric surgery reduce recurrence rates? A meta-analysis

A prospective, multicenter trial of a long-term bioabsorbable mesh with Sepra technology in cohort of challenging laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repairs (ATLAS trial)

BackgroundThis prospective, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study evaluated P4HB-ST mesh in laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair (LVIHR) in patients with Class I (clean) wounds at high risk for Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO). MethodsPrimary endpoint was SSO requiring intervention <45 days. Secondary endpoints included: surgical procedure time, length of stay, SSO >45 days, hernia recurrence, device-related adverse events, reoperation, and Quality of Life at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24-months. Results120 patients (52.5% male), mean age of 55.0 ± 14.9 years, and BMI of 33.2 ± 4.5 kg/m2 received P4HB-ST mesh. Patient-reported comorbid conditions included: obesity (86.7%), active smoker (45.0%), COPD (5.0%), diabetes (16.7%), immunosuppression (2.5%), coronary artery disease (7.5%), chronic corticosteroid use (2.5%), hypoalbuminemia (0.8%), advanced age (10.0%), and renal insufficiency (0.8%). Hernia types were primary ventral (44.2%), primary incisional (37.5%), recurrent ventral (5.8%), and recurrent incisional (12.5%). Patients underwent LVIHR in laparoscopic (55.8%) or robotic-assisted cases (44.2%), mean defect size 15.7 ± 28.3 cm2, mean procedure time 85.9 ± 43.0 min, and mean length of stay 1.0 ± 1.4 days. There were no SSOs requiring intervention beyond 45 days, n = 38 (31.7%) recurrences, n = 22 (18.3%) reoperations, and n = 2 (1.7%) device-related adverse events (excluding recurrence). ConclusionP4HB-ST mesh demonstrated low rates of SSO and device-related complications, with improved quality of life scores, and reoperation rate comparable to other published studies. Recurrence rate was higher than expected at 31.7%. However, when analyzed by hernia defect size, recurrence was disproportionately high in defects ≥7.1 cm2 (43.3%) compared to defects <7.1 cm2 (18.6%). Thus, in LVIHR, P4HB-ST may be better suited for small defects. Caution is warranted when utilizing P4HB-ST in laparoscopic IPOM repair of larger defects until additional studies can further investigate outcomes.

EP.TH.108A Descriptive Case Series of Incisional Hernia Repair Using Dual Mesh Technique

Abstract Aims Incisional hernias are a common complication after surgery that cause significant patient morbidity. Symptomatic patients are offered repair but many surgical techniques exist, with abdominal wall reconstruction becoming preferable for large complex defects. This paper describes our experience of abdominal wall reconstruction using a dual mesh technique. Method 22 patients underwent incisional hernia repair between March 2019 and September 2020. All patients received dual mesh, placed in retrorectus or transversalis fascial/retromuscular space. Absorbable BIO-A GORE mesh was used with a polypropylene mesh above. All patients were followed up to assess for complications and recurrence. Results No patients experienced fistula formation, long-term pain or obstructive symptoms. We report one true hernia recurrence (4.5%) and one case of infected mesh (4.5%), these both await further treatment. One patient had a proven wound infection which resolved with conservative treatment. 4 patients (18.2%) experienced seromas, 3 of these resolved spontaneously, one requiring image-guided drainage. Conclusion Incisional hernia repair using combination polypropylene and bio-absorbable mesh provides a safe and effective repair with low recurrence and incidence of surgical site occurrences in the short term. Longer follow up and further studies are needed to evaluate this mesh technique to support ongoing use of absorbable meshes in complex hernia repair.

337 MESH REINFORCEMENT OF THE HIATOPLASTY. PROTECTING THE ACHILLES' HEEL

Abstract Disruption of hiatoplasty is one of the main causes of anti reflux surgeries failure. There are some conditions that are associated with higher risks of disruption, leading to hernia recurrence. Bioabsorbable meshes have a safer profile compared to the permanent ones and we show in this video its use aiming to prevent early and possibly, late recurrence. Methods We present a video about different indications for reinforcement of hiatal closure with bioabsorbable mesh. With the security of bioabsorbable materials and previous experiences with these kind of meshes used in an U configuration, we are suggesting that it can be used as an inverted C over the posterior and anterior sutures placed to close the hiatal defect. The mesh is cut during the surgery to better accommodate as an onlay protection. It can be fixed to the diaphragm in different ways, but we used fibrin glue in this series. Results Sixteen patients were operated with this technique. The long term results are not available at this point, but short term results are very encouraging. We have noticed a slightly higher complaint of dysphagia among these patient compared to what we use to observe in our non-mesh patients, but dilatation was not necessary in any patient. Conclusion The use of bioabsorbable mesh in the hiatus is safe and can be used with more frequently to prevent hiatal recurrences in specific groups of patients. Video https://www.dropbox.com/s/jsblif0pfjcuicu/BIOMESH.mov?dl=0.

421 USE OF BIOABSORBABLE MESH TO REINFORCE HIATAL CLOSURE—EARLY RESULTS

Abstract The hiatoplasty is one of the keypoints of hiatal hernia surgery. Reherniation is known to be a frequent reason for recurrence and reoperation. Biodegradable materials for reinforcement have been. shown in some series to reduce these outcomes with very low risks of mesh-related complications. Long term reports, however, have shown conflicting results. This may be because meshes have been used in complicated cases, in which other variables can be involved in unfavourable outcomes. Methods Based on the safe profile of absorbable meshes, we have used meshes to reinforce the hiatoplasty in patients with theoretical higher risks of hernia recurrence. Twenty four patients were operated using bioabsorbable mesh (Gore Bio A®), implanted as an onlay inverted C over a completely closed hiatus. Two surgeons were responsible for all the surgeries. There were 16 (66,6%) women and 8 (33,3%) men. The main reasons for using a mesh were: primary large hiatal hernias (4 cm or more)—14 cases; redo hiatal hernias—8 cases; increased abdominal pressure—2 cases. Results All surgeries were performed between April 2018 and January 2020. Meshes were fixed to the diaphragm using absorbable sutures, fibrin sealant or cyanoacrylate. In all cases, a Nissen fundoplication was performed. There were no conversions. Two (8,3%) patients complained of troublesome dysphagia requiring intervention. One had to be operated within the first 48 hours after surgery: 2 stitches of the hiatus were removed and the fundoplication was converted into a Toupet. The other patient was submitted to endoscopic dilatation and still referes mild dysphagia. In a short follow up period (1–19 months), 23 patients (95,8%) are asymptomatic. Conclusion The use of bioabsorbable mesh in the hiatus is safe and have shown good symptomatic outcomes in the short follow up period. Objective results and longer follow up are needed to see if additional reinforcement of hiatoplasty contributes to reduce recurrence and reoperation rates.

Robotic transthoracic diaphragmatic hernia repair.

Robotic transthoracic diaphragmatic hernia repair.

Use of a bioabsorbable mesh in midline laparotomy closure to prevent incisional hernia: randomized controlled trial.

The objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of a bioabsorbable mesh at the time of closure of a midline laparotomy for IH prevention. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial including patients undergoing abdominal surgical procedures through a midline laparotomy incision was designed. In the group of mesh (n=167) the incision was closed using a continuous polydioxanone suture (PDS) plus a bioabsorbable mesh. In the control group (n=165) a continuous PDS single layer suture was only used. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the two groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of IH at 6, 12 and 24 months. Assessment of IH was done using a CT scan. At 6 months, the rates of IH were 15.2% and 24.8% in the experimental and control groups, respectively (relative risk [RR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.98, P = 0.042). At 12 months, the rate of IH continued to be significantly lower in the experimental group (21.4% vs. 33.1%, P = 0.033), but at 24 months, there were no significant differences between the study groups with a follow-up rate of only 37.5%. The number needed to treat (NNT) was 11 and 9 at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The bioabsorbable mesh significantly prevented IH during the first year. Not reliable conclusions can be drawn across the second year. This may suggest that the any of the closing technique assessed in this study would have a "palliative" transient effect for preventing IH in the long-term.

Combined Robotic-Assisted Bio-absorbable Mesh Placement and Gluteal Fasciocutaneous Flap Reconstruction: a Novel Technique for the Repair of a Symptomatic Perineal Hernia Following Extralevator Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer

Extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer has predominated over the common technique during recent years providing better oncologic results. However, extralevator abdominoperineal resection has been associated to a higher incidence of wound complications and perineal hernia. Several risk factors including preoperative pelvic radiotherapy, laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection, women, previous hysterectomy, obesity, coccygectomy, long small bowel mesentery, postoperative wound infection, and open pelvic peritoneum have been correlated to increased perineal hernia rate. Despite the minor clinical manifestation of a perineal hernia, its effect on the quality of life remains remarkable. Therefore, the surgical management of a perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection is still a challenge for colorectal surgeons. Several techniques have been used including biologic meshes and myocutaneous flaps. Nevertheless, the ideal technique has not yet been proved. During last years, colorectal surgeons have utilized minimally invasive techniques such as robotic repair of perineal hernias. We presented the first case in the literature of a combined approach of robotic-assisted repair using a bio-absorbable mesh and a gluteal fasciocutaneous flap reconstruction.

Safety and advantage of no drain policy after thoracoscopic major lung resection.

It is my great honor to express my opinion on the editorial commentary (1,2) regarding our paper, “No drain after thoracoscopic major lung resection for cancer helps preserve the physical function” (3). First of all, we could achieve a satisfactory outcome with our no drain strategy after major lung resection for cancer (4), partly because of comprehensive coverage by the national medical insurance system in Japan: most of the materials to seal air leaks, such as endostaplers, fibrin sealant, and bioabsorbable mesh, are covered by the Japanese national insurance system.