Incidence Of Incisional Hernia Research Articles

Assessment of Quality of Life after Endovascular and Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.

Postoperative quality of life is an important outcome parameter after treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to assess and compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients after open repair (OR) or endovascular treatment (EVAR), and furthermore to investigate the effect of incisional hernia (IH) formation on HRQoL. Patients who underwent OR or EVAR for treatment of an abdominal aortic aneurysm between 2008 and 2016 at a University Medical Center were included. HRQoL was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. The incidence of IH was recorded from patient files and by telephone contact. SF-36 scores of 83 patients (OR: n = 36; EVAR: n = 47) were obtained. The mean follow-up period was 7.1 years. When comparing HRQoL between OR and EVAR, patients in both groups scored higher in one of the eight categories of the SF36 questionnaires. The incidence of IH after OR was 30.6%. In patients with postoperative IH, HRQoL was significantly reduced in the dimensions “physical functioning”, “role physical” and “role emotional” of the SF-36. Based on this data, it can be concluded that neither OR nor EVAR supply a significant advantage regarding HRQoL. In contrast, the occurrence of IH has a relevant impact on the HRQoL of patients after OR.

Introduction of Small Stitch Small Bite technique: a retrospective long-term follow-up

PurposeStandardization of abdominal wall closure is suggested to improve quality and reduce the risk for late abdominal wall complications. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of a structured introduction of guidelines for abdominal wall closure on the rates of incisional hernia and wound dehiscence.MethodsAll procedures performed via a midline incision in 2010–2011 and 2016–2017 at Capio St Göran’s Hospital were identified and assessed for complications and risk factors.ResultsSix hundred two procedures were registered in 2010–2011, and 518 in 2016–2017. Four years after the implementation of new guidelines, 93% of procedures were performed using the standardized technique. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia or wound dehiscence between the groups. In multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, BMI > 25, wound dehiscence, and postoperative wound infection were found to be independent risk factors for incisional hernia (all p < 0.05). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, male gender and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were risk factors for wound dehiscence (both p < 0.05).ConclusionsThe present study failed to show a significant improvement in rates of incisional hernia and wound dehiscence after the introduction of Small Stitch Small Bites. When introducing a new standardized technique for closing the abdomen, education and structural implementation of guidelines may have an impact in the long run. The risk factors identified should be taken into consideration when closing a midline incision to identify patients with high risk.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a retrospective cohort study of anastomotic complications.

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) can be performed with an intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). It is not clear which technique is best. This study evaluated the impact of each anastomosis technique on perioperative safety and postoperative evolution. We performed a retrospective study at a tertiary colorectal surgery center. All patients who had an elective LRH from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed according to the anastomosis technique used. In total, 285 patients were included in the study. IA was performed in 64 patients (22.5%). Mean operative time was longer in the patients with IA (IA, 160±31 minutes vs. EA, 138±42 minutes; P<0.001). No differences were observed in intraoperative complications, time to first bowel movement, length of stay, reoperation, or rehospitalization. Time to first flatus was longer in the patients with IA (P=0.049). At 30 days after surgery, there were no differences in the frequency of anastomotic leak (IA, 0% vs. EA, 2.3%; P=0.59), bleeding (IA, 3.1% vs. EA, 2.7%; P>0.99), or intraabdominal abscess (IA, 0% vs. EA, 0.5%; P>0.99). During follow-up, we noted more incisional hernias in patients with EA (IA, 1.6% vs. EA, 11.3%; P=0.01) and a trend toward more hernia in patients with EA in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 7.13; P=0.06). Anastomosis technique had no influence on recurrence. For LRH, both IA and EA are safe, with a low incidence of complications when performed by experienced surgeons. IA may be associated with a lower incidence of incisional hernia.

Closure of Iterative Laparotomy in Patients With Previous Mesh Reinforcement a Cohorts' Study. Short-Term Results.

Purpose: Due to extension of prophylactic mesh indications use will become more common to find patients receiving an iterative laparotomy (IL) over a previous reinforced abdominal wall. The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes after IL in patients with previous mesh reinforcement. Methods: This study was a prospective secondary analysis of midline laparotomy closure performed from July 2017 to July 2018 registered in PHACPA study (NCT02658955). IL were included and surgery characteristics and outcomes analyzed. We compared two groups: with (PreM) or without previous prophylactic onlay mesh reinforcement (PreS) Subgroups' analysis, risk factors for complications and survival free hernia analysis were performed. Results: 121 IL were analyzed. Only obesity was associated with higher SSO (OR 2.6; CI 95% 1.02-6.90; p = 0.04) There were 15 incisional hernias (IH) (14.4%). Group with previous mesh reinforcement (pre M) had a higher statistically significative incidence of IH (OR = 1.21; CI 95% 1.05-1.39; p = 0.015). Use of slowly absorbable suture (OR = 0.74; CI 95% 0.60-0.91; p = 0.001), USP 2/0 suture (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; p = 0.033), and small bites technique (OR = 0.81; CI 95% 0.72-0.90; p = 0.011) were associated with less IH. Conclusion: IL has a high percentage of complications and IH. In case of IL without previous reinforcement, a mesh can help to reduce IH. Our data cannot clearly support any technique to close an IL with previous mesh.

Evaluation of the Effect of Closure Technique on Incidence of Incisional Hernia after Single-Port Laparoscopy in Gynecologic Oncology Surgery

To evaluate incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia in women undergoing single-port laparoscopy (SPL) for gynecologic oncology indications with a standardized fascia closure (SC) technique vs historical controls (HC). Retrospective cohort study. Single academic institution. Women who underwent SPL from June 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019, for gynecologic oncology indications with SC were compared with HC who underwent SPL from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2015. Data were collected for patient demographics, postoperative outcomes, and incisional hernia development. Univariate analysis and multivariable regression models were built for predictors of incisional hernia. Of 1163 patients, 242 (20.8%) patients had SC, and 921 (79.2%) patients were HC. SC cohort had lower rates of diabetes vs HC (10.3% vs 15.3%; p=.049) but no differences in hypertension (36.8% vs 43.0% p=.081) and obesity (42.6% vs 36.9%, p=.11). A total of 1123 (96.6%) patients did not undergo conversion to multiport laparoscopy or laparotomy, of whom 7.2% (n=81) of patients developed an incisional hernia; there was no difference in incisional hernia development for SC with SPL (n=237) vHC with SPL (n=886) (9.7% vs 6.5%, p=.095). On multivariable analysis, increased body mass index (odds ratio [OR] 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.09, p < .001) and diabetes (OR 2.41; CI 1.34-4.32, p=.003) were associated with incisional hernia, but age (OR 1.00; CI .98-1.02, p=.92), length of surgery (OR 1.00; CI 1.00-1.01, p=.62), and hypertension (OR .89; CI .52-1.53, p=.68) were not. Patients with prior abdominal surgeries (OR 1.92; CI 1.14-3.26, p=.015) and hand-assist surgery (OR 3.17; CI 1.48-6.80, p=.003) were significantly associated with incisional hernia. Implementation of an SC protocol did not decrease the rate of incisional hernia vs HC during SPL. Risk of incisional hernia must be considered for SPL planning in patients with complex medical comorbidities and prior abdominal surgery.

The Role of Preoperative Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio as a Predictor for Incisional Hernias after Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Liver Surgery for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

(1) Background: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for liver resection is a globally established technique. In this study, we report on the incidence and risk factors for postoperative incisional hernia (IH) after hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for colorectal liver metastasis. (2) Methods: This was retrospective analysis of 89 consecutive hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for colorectal liver metastasis. (3) Results: Participants were 39 females and 50 males. Median age was 65 years, and in 63%, the BMI was ≥25. Postoperative complications were encountered in 18% of the patients. Seven patients (7.8%) had postoperative incisional hernia in the hand port site. There was significantly higher incidence of incisional hernia in overweight patients (BMI ≥ 25) (p = 0.04), and in cases with simultaneous liver and colon resection (p = 0.02). In univariant and multivariant analyses, simultaneous liver and colon resection (p = 0.004 and 0.03, respectively), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio ≤ 200 (p = 0.03, 0.04, respectively) were both independent risk factors for developing postoperative incisional hernia. (4) Conclusions: Both simultaneous liver and colon resection, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio ≤ 200 are independent risk factors for postoperative incisional hernia after hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for colorectal liver metastasis.

Risk factors of incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery with periumbilical minilaparotomy incision: a propensity score matching analysis.

PurposeIncisional hernia is one of the most common complications after abdominal surgery conducted through a midline incision. Considerable debate remains regarding the design, comorbidity, suture material, and method. We investigated the risk factors for incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the presence of limited surgery-related factors.MethodsA retrospective study was designed with 541 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed by a single operator from January 2015 to December 2017. Due to open conversions, other abdominal operations, or follow-up loss, only 445 patients were included in the study. After propensity score matching, 266 patients were included. The study was based on diagnosis of incisional hernia on computed tomography at 6 and 12 months postoperatively.ResultsOf the 266 total patients, 133 underwent abdominal closure using PDS (Ethicon), while the remaining 133 underwent closure with Vicryl (Ethicon). Of these patients, nine were diagnosed with incisional hernia at the 12-month follow-up six (4.5%) in the Vicryl group and three (2.3%) in the PDS group (p = 0.309). The incidence of incisional hernia was significantly increased in females (odds ratio [OR], 15.233; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.905–121.799; p = 0.010), in patients with body mass index (BMI) of >25 kg/m2 (OR, 4.740; 95% CI, 1.424–15.546; p = 0.011), and in patients with liver disease (OR, 19.899; 95% CI, 1.614–245.376; p = 0.020).ConclusionBMI of >25 kg/m2, female, and liver disease were significant risk factors for incisional hernia after elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed through a transumbilical minilaparotomy incision.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN ONLAY AND SUBLAY MESH REPAIR IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INCISIONAL HERNIA

Background: An incisional hernia is one of the common complications of abdominal surgery and the incidence of incisional hernias continues to be 3 to 11% after laparotomy. The repair of incisional hernia has always been a challenge to the surgeon. Various operative techniques for the repair of incisional hernia are in practice; however, the management is not standardized. Aim: To compare onlay mesh placement versus sublay mesh placement in repair of incisional hernias. This prospective study Material and Methods: comprised of 50 patients with an incisional hernia. A total of 50 cases were included in the study. Of the 50 cases, 25 cases were operated by the onlay mesh method and 25 by sublay mesh placement. Results: The operative time for sublay mesh repair was signicantly higher than that of onlay mesh repair, whereas, complications like haemorrhage, seroma formation and deep surgical site infection leading to extrusion of mesh was higher in onlay mesh repair. The recurrence rate was found to be 4% in onlay mesh repair whereas it was 0% in sublay mesh repair. Sublay mesh repair, though technically difcult, Conclusion: and takes more time for surgery has the distinct advantage of reducing the rate of infection and recurrence.

Incisional Hernia following Abdominal Surgery in Children: A Single Centre Experience

Background: Although uncommon, incisional hernia is a well-known complication of abdominal surgery in children and data on incisional hernia in the pediatric age group are sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate a single center’s experience with regards to the incidence and outcome of incisional hernia in children. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study of children aged 15 years and younger who developed incisional hernia following abdominal surgery, between January 2013 and December 2017, at the pediatric surgery unit of a tertiary hospital in Enugu, Nigeria. Results: During the study period, a total of 1004 pediatric abdominal surgeries were performed. Out of this number, 31 patients developed incisional hernia: This accounted for an incidence rate of 3.1%. There was male predominance and the mean age at diagnosis of incisional hernia was 24 months. All the patients presented with a protrusion at or around the site of a previous surgical scar. Non-operative treatment (serial bandaging) was effective in most of the patients. There was no mortality. Conclusion: Incisional hernia is a well-known complication of abdominal surgery. This study recorded the incisional hernia incidence rate of 3.1%. Non-operative treatment was successful in majority of the patients. Future studies should emphasis on the specific risk factors (surgeon/patient) that may predispose to incisional hernia.

Incidence of incisional hernia after major colorectal cancer surgery & analysis of associated risk factors in Asian population: Is laparoscopy any better?

Incisional hernia is one of the common morbidities after major colorectal cancer surgery. We aim to compare the incidence of incisional hernias between laparoscopic and open surgery. We also aim to identify associated risk factors of incisional hernia among Asian population who has undergone major resection for colorectal cancer. Data of patients who had undergone major colorectal cancer surgery in year 2015 from a single institution was collected. Data were extracted from electronic clinical records from our institution's database. Incisional hernias were identified by clinical examination and computed tomography (CT) scan performed during post-operative follow up as part of colorectal cancer surveillance. Follow up data of up to 3 years were extracted. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis were performed to identify associated risk factors for development of incisional hernia. Propensity score matching analysis was performed for laparoscopic and open resection. 502 patients were included in the study. With a minimum follow up of 3 years, overall incisional hernia incidence rate of 13% was identified. Incisional hernias after laparoscopic and open surgery were 12.3% and 13.8% (p=0.688) respectively. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that body mass index (BMI) of >23kg/m2, ASA of III/IV and post-operative anastomotic leak were associated with development of incisional hernias. On multivariable analysis, female gender (OR 2.102, 95%CI: 1.155, 3.826), BMI of ≥23kg/m2 (OR 2.862 95%CI: 1.582, 5.181), ASA III/IV (OR 2.052, 95%CI: 1.169, 3.602), were significantly associated with development of incisional hernia. Propensity scores matched analysis showed laparoscopic surgery did not significantly reduce the incidence of incisional hernia. The overall incidence of incisional hernia seems lower in Asian population. Our study demonstrated no significant difference in incisional hernia rates between patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery. Female gender, higher BMI, and higher ASA are associated with increased risk of developing incisional hernia after major colorectal cancer resection.

Periumbilical Transverse Incision for Reducing Incisional Hernia in Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Surgery.

Although off-midline incisions (unilateral low transverse or Pfannenstiel incision) have been reported to have a lower incidence of incisional hernia (IH) than periumbilical vertical incision for the purpose of specimen extraction, it is most commonly used in laparoscopic colon cancer surgery because off-midline incisions are associated with the limitation of colon exteriorization. This study aims to investigate the risk of IH after laparoscopic colectomy and compare midline vertical incision versus transverse incision focusing on the incidence of IH. Patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colectomy due to colon malignancy from June 2015 to May 2017 were included. All patients had either vertical (n = 429) or muscle splitting periumbilical transverse incisions (n = 125). Median duration of the follow-up period was 23.6months, during which IHs occurred in 12.1% patients. The incidence of hernia was significantly lower in the transverse group (3 vs. 64, 2.4% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, BMI ≥ 23 [odds ratio (OR) 2.282, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.245-4.182, p = 0.008], postoperative surgical site infection (OR 3.780, 95% CI 1.969-7.254, p < 0.001) and vertical incision (OR 7.113, 95% CI 2.173-23.287, p < 0.001) were independently related with increased incidence of IH. A muscle splitting periumbilical transverse incision could significantly reduce the rate of IH in minimally invasive colon cancer surgery.

Efficacy and safety of mesh closure in preventing wound failure following emergency laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate comparative outcomes of emergency laparotomy closure with and without prophylactic mesh. A systematic review was performed via literature databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Studies were examined for eligibility and included if they compared prophylactic mesh closure to the conventional laparotomy closure following emergency abdominal surgery. Both acute wound failure and incisional hernia (IH) occurence were our primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI), seroma/hematoma formation, Clavien-Dindo complications (score ≥ 3), total operative time, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four comparative studies with a total of 817 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall acute wound failure and incisional hernia rate was significantly lower in the mesh group compared to non-mesh group (odd ratio (OR) 0.23, p = 0.002) and (OR 0.21, p = 0.00001), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the following outcomes: total operative time (mean difference (MD) 21.44, p = 0.15), SSI (OR 1.47, p = 0.06), seroma/haematoma formation (OR 2.74, p = 0.07), grade ≥ 3 Clavien-Dindo complications (OR 2.39, p = 0.28), and LOS (MD 0.26, p = 0.84). The current evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh in emergency laparotomy is diverse and obscure. Although the data trends towards a reduction in the incidence of IH, a reliable conclusion requires further high-quality RCTs to fully assess the efficacy and safety of mesh use in an emergency setting.

An evidence map and synthesis review with meta-analysis on the risk of incisional hernia in colorectal surgery with standard closure.

To assess the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) across various type of incisions in colorectal surgery (CS) creating a map of evidence to define research trends, gaps and areas of future interest. Systematic review of PubMed and Scopus from 2010 onwards. Studies included both open (OS) and laparoscopic (LS). The primary outcome was incidence of IH 12months after index procedure, secondary outcomes were the study features and their influence on reported proportion of IH. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportions. Meta-regression models were performed to explore heterogeneity. Ninetyone studies were included reporting 6473 IH. The pooled proportions of IH for OS were 0.35 (95% CI 0.27-0.44) I2 0% in midline laparotomies and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.07), I2 52% for off-midline. In case of LS the pooled proportion of IH for midline extraction sites were 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.16), I2 58% and 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), I2 86% in case of off-midline. In Port-site IH was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.04), I2 82%, and for single incision surgery (SILS) of 0.06-95% CI 0.02-0.15, I2 81%. In case of stoma reversal sites was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.24). Midline laparotomies and stoma reversal sites are at high risk for IH and should be considered in research of preventive strategies of closure. After laparoscopic approach IH happens mainly by extraction sites incisions specially midline and also represent an important area of analysis.

Stoma creation is associated with a low incidence of midline incisional hernia after colorectal surgery: the "fighting over the fascia" theory concerning the incision and stoma hole.

Parastomal hernia (PH) develops more frequently than incisional hernia (IH) after colorectal surgery with stoma. This study evaluated our hypothesis that inward traction of the fascia when closing a midline incision widens the stoma hole and increases the incidence of PH. A total of 795 patients who underwent colorectal resection between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The risk classification was constructed from IH risk factors extracted from the non-stoma group. Then, the classification was extrapolated to the stoma group for predicting midline IH and PH. The incidence of IH was 5.3% in the stoma group and 12.5% in the non-stoma group (p = 0.005). PH developed in 19.6% of 97 patients with permanent stoma. The risk classification was able to predict PH without a significant difference but was well balanced in patients with permanent stoma; however, it failed to predict IH in the stoma group. The risk classification constructed from the non-stoma group was useful for predicting not midline IH but PH, suggesting that the stoma site was the most vulnerable for herniation. The "fighting over the fascia" theory between the midline incision and stoma hole may explain the causal relationship between the midline IH and PH.

Prophylactic retrorectus mesh versus no mesh in midline emergency laparotomy closure for prevention of incisional hernia (PREEMER): study protocol for a multicentre, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BackgroundDespite the fact that emergency midline laparotomy is a risk factor for an incisional hernia, active research on hernia prevention in emergency settings is lacking. Different kinds of meshes and mesh positions have been studied in elective abdominal surgery, but no randomized controlled trials in emergency settings have been published thus far.MethodThe PREEMER trial (registration number NCT04311788) is a multicentre, patient- and assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial to be conducted in six hospitals in Finland. A total of 244 patients will be randomized at a 1 : 1 ratio to either the retrorectus mesh group, featuring a self-gripping prophylactic mesh, or to the no mesh (control) group, both closed by small-stitch 4 : 1 closure with continuous slowly absorbable monofilament suturing. The primary outcome of the PREEMER trial is the incidence of incisional hernia 2 years after surgery, which will be detected clinically and/or radiologically. Secondary outcomes are the Comprehensive Complication Index score, incidence of surgical-site infections and fascial dehiscence within 30 days of surgery; the incisional hernia repair rate and mesh- or hernia-related reoperations within the 2- and 5-year follow-ups; the incidence of incisional hernia within the 5-year follow-up; and quality of life measured by RAND-36, the Activities Assessment Scale and the PROMIS questionnaire within 30 days and 2 and 5 years from surgery. Additionally, health–economic explorative measures will be explored.ConclusionThe PREEMER trial will provide level 1 evidence on incisional hernia prevention in an emergency setting.Registration numberNCT04311788 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). Registered 7 March 2020.

Incidence of Incisional Hernias After Liver Resections Performed Through Subcostal Laparotomies

Introduction: Incisional hernias are common and important long-term complications in oncological surgery. This study aimed to provide accurate data on the incidence and risk factors for the occurrence of incisional hernial after liver resections performed through subcostal incisions. Method: This prospective observational study included 55 patients after liver resections performed for suspected malignancy in the Department of General, Transplant and Liver Surgery of the Medical University of Warsaw. Incidence of incisional hernias was the primary outcome measure. Follow up was based on clinical assessment and ultrasonographic examination of the scar at least 12 months postoperatively. Logistic regression was applied for risk factor analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) were presented with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: Incisional hernias occurred in 18 of 55 patients (32.7%). On univariable analyses, male sex (p=0.020), body mass index (p=0.010), and arterial hypertension (p=0.006) increased the risk of incisional hernias. Arterial hypertension was the independent risk factor (OR 2.53; 95% CI 1.31-4.89). Incisional hernias occurred in 9 of 41 (22.0%) patients without arterial hypertension as opposed to 9 of 14 (64.3%) patients with arterial hypertension (p=0.007). Conclusion: Incisional hernias commonly occur after liver resections performed though subcostal incisions. Individual susceptibility, as reflected by arterial hypertension, is a major determinant of their development.

The Role of Pre-Operative Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratio as a Predictor for Incisional Hernias after Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Liver Surgery for Metastatic Colo-Rectal Cancer

Background: Minimally invasive techniques for liver resection has become a widespread procedure Through this study, we aimed to report the incidence of post-operative incisional hernia as well as to high mark the potential risk factors, including clinical data and inflammatory indexes, for post-operative hernias after Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for liver metastatic colon cancer.

Incidence Rate of Incisional Hernia Post Liver and Kidney Transplant at a Tertiary Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Background Incisional hernia post organ transplant increases morbidity and impacts quality of life among patients undergoing abdominal organ transplants.ObjectivesTo estimate the incidence rate of incisional hernia and the factors associated with incisional hernia among patients who underwent liver and kidney transplants.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study in which all patients from 2015 to 2020 who underwent liver and/or kidney transplants and met inclusion criteria were involved.ResultsA total of 424 patients who received transplantation surgery were included. Out of them, 287 patients (67.6%) underwent kidney transplants while 132 patients (31.1%) underwent a liver transplant. Additionally, five patients (1.1%) received both liver and kidney transplantation. Fourteen patients (3.3%) experienced incisional hernia across all samples. A higher incidence rate was noticed among patients with liver transplants compared to kidney transplants (6.81% in the liver group vs 1.7% in the kidney group), which showed a statistical significance between the two groups (P-value= 0.007). In multivariate analysis, surgical site infection (SSI), donor type, acute organ rejection, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and diabetes were all not predictors of incisional hernia among the patients. ConclusionIncisional hernia incidence in between the groups was within the global range of incisional hernia incidence among abdominal organ transplant patients, with a higher incidence among liver transplant patients. All factors associated with incisional hernia, such as SSI, DM, and old age, didn’t show significance as predictors to incisional hernia formation among the samples.

How we do it: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with severe obesity.

The number of patients with obesity is set to rise, as is the proportion with severe obesity. These patients are a high-risk subgroup who present addi- tional challenges to the surgeon when performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. It is important that all surgeons who perform this procedure have a safe strategy they can revert to. This article outlines our approach. After obtaining pneumoperitoneum via a supra-umbilical incision, we advise placing a fascial suture before proceeding with the operation. This allows for high-quality closure, reduces the incidence of incisional hernia, and reduces the risk of inadvertent bowel injury. We also advise the repositioning of the patient on the operating table prior to port placement such that an ergonomic set-up can be achieved. In addition to standard ports, we use an additional twelve-millimetre port in the left upper quadrant. A fan retractor can be inserted via this port and used to gently retract the duodenum inferiorly. This provides adequate exposure for Calot's dissection and arguably reduces the risk of injury to a fatty liver. This technique can also be used in non-obese patients in whom Calot's dissection is particularly challenging, for instance in those who undergo delayed cholecystectomy.

Comparison of safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up between "one-step" and "step-up" approaches for infected pancreatic necrosis.

BACKGROUNDAlthough the “Step-up” strategy is the primary surgical treatment for infected pancreatic necrosis, it is not suitable for all such patients. The “One-step” strategy represents a novel treatment, but the safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up have not yet been compared between these two approaches.AIMTo compare the safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up of two surgical approaches to provide a reference for infected pancreatic necrosis treatment.METHODSThis was a retrospective analysis of infectious pancreatic necrosis patients who underwent “One-step” or “Step-up” necrosectomy at Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, from May 2014 to December 2020. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of severe complications or death. Patients were followed up every 6 mo after discharge until death or June 30, 2021. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 21.0 and GraphPad Prism 8.0, and statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.RESULTSOne-hundred-and-fifty-eight patients were enrolled, of whom 61 patients underwent “One-step” necrosectomy and 97 patients underwent “Step-up” necrosectomy. During the long-term follow-up period, 40 patients in the “One-step” group and 63 patients in the “Step-up” group survived. The time from disease onset to hospital admission (53.69 ± 38.14 vs 32.20 ± 20.75, P < 0.001) and to initial surgical treatment was longer in the “Step-up” than in the “One-step” group (54.38 ± 10.46 vs 76.58 ± 17.03, P < 0.001). Patients who underwent “Step-up” necrosectomy had a longer hospitalization duration (65.41 ± 28.14 vs 52.76 ± 24.71, P = 0.02), and more interventions (4.26 ± 1.71 vs 3.18 ± 1.39, P < 0.001). Postoperative inflammatory indicator levels were significantly lower than preoperative levels in each group. Although the incisional hernia incidence was higher in the “One-step” group, no significant difference was found in the composite outcomes of severe complications or death, new-onset organ failure, postoperative complications, inflammatory indicators, long-term complications, quality of life, and medical costs between the groups (P > 0.05).CONCLUSIONCompared with the “Step-up” approach, the “One-step” approach is a safe and effective treatment method with better long-term quality of life and prognosis. It also provides an alternative surgical treatment strategy for patients with infected pancreatic necrosis.