Non-mesh Group Research Articles

Prophylactic mesh to prevent incisional hernia in laparotomy for ovarian tumors

ObjectiveIncisional hernias are a common complication of midline laparotomies. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of prophylactic mesh placement after midline laparotomy for ovarian tumors on...

247 Prophylactic Use of 3D Intraperitoneal Mesh in the Prevention of Parastomal Hernia in Permanent Colostomies After Rectal Cancer Resection

Abstract Background Parastomal hernia (PSH) is the most common complication of stomas associated with significant morbidity. Prophylactic mesh in preventing PSH is less well studied, and evidence is conflicting. We compare PSH rates in patients in whom 3D intraperitoneal mesh was and was not used prophylactically in a cohort of rectal cancer patients undergoing elective curative resection. Method Retrospective data from the Somerset Database and Electronic Patient Record were collected on patients under a single consultant surgeon between May 2016 and December 2021. Follow up was for a minimum of 2 years (excluding deaths). Appropriate statistical tests of difference significance were performed for proportions of categorical data, and time to hernia occurrence in patients with and without Dynamesh IPST placement. (Fisher’s Exact test; Kaplan Meier) Results From 397 colorectal cancer patients under the care of a single surgeon, 223 had elective surgery with curative intent, of which 63 (28%) underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) (30 TME & ileostomy, 12 TME Hartmann and 21 APER) - 90% laparoscopic. 16 patients had prophylactic mesh used. Demographics and co-morbidities between groups were similar. PSH incidence was 1 (6%) (radiological) vs.7 (41%) (clinical) in the mesh vs. non-mesh group; P=0.039. Post operative complications and pain scores differed only slightly. Time to hernia development did not differ between groups. Conclusions Use of prophylactic mesh during permanent stoma formation in our practice appears safe, and effective in preventing PSH. Further studies may answer the question “Should 3D collared mesh be routinely placed during the formation of permanent stomas to prevent parastomal hernia?”

Effect of Sublay Preventive Mesh for Terminal Colostomy on Symptoms and Quality of Life in Patients With Parastomal Hernia: A Post Hoc Analysis of the GRECCAR 7 Cohort.

Recent randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses confirm that the use of a prophylactic mesh does not significantly reduce the parastomal hernia rate. Data about the benefits of these meshes concerning the symptoms of parastomal hernia are lacking in the existing literature. The aim of this study was to perform a post hoc analysis of the patients presenting parastomal hernia from the GRECCAR 7 (Groupe de recherche sur la chirurgie du cancer du rectum) randomized clinical trials cohort on whether the presence or the absence of the mesh influenced the symptoms, the quality of life, and complications of patients with parastomal hernias. We studied the parastomal hernia-related symptoms among the 2 groups of the GRECCAR 7 randomized clinical trial, with or without prophylactic mesh at the time of the index surgery. Data were retrospectively extracted and analyzed from the GRECCAR 7 database. Patients diagnosed with a parastomal hernia during the 2 years of the GRECCAR 7 study. Several prospectively collected data about the symptoms were studied among this population. We also studied the average interval between parastomal hernia repair surgery and both index surgery and diagnosis of parastomal hernia. Among the 199 patients included in the GRECCAR study, 36 patients (35.6%) in the nonmesh group and 33 patients (33.7%) in the mesh group were diagnosed with clinical and/or radiological parastomal hernia at 2-year follow-up, without a statistically significant difference ( p = 0.89). None of the studied symptoms showed any statistically significant difference between the groups. This study relies on a relatively small number of patients, and although data were prospectively collected, we lacked some details about the categorization of parastomal hernias. We believe that the use of a prosthetic mesh in a sublay position to prevent parastomal hernia in terminal end colostomy patients should no longer be recommended. See Video Abstract . ANTECEDENTES:Los recientes metaanálisis y ensayos clínicos aleatorizados confirman que el uso de una malla profiláctica no reduce significativamente la tasa de hernia paraestomal. En la literatura existente faltan datos sobre los beneficios de estas mallas en relación con los síntomas de la hernia paraestomal.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue realizar un análisis post-hoc de los pacientes que presentaron hernia paraestomal de la cohorte de 7 ensayos clínicos aleatorizados GRECCAR sobre si la presencia o ausencia de la malla influyó en los síntomas, la calidad de vida y las complicaciones de los pacientes con hernias paraestomales.DISEÑO:Estudiamos los síntomas relacionados con la hernia paraestomal entre los dos grupos del ensayo clínico aleatorizado GRECCAR 7, con o sin malla profiláctica en el momento de la cirugía índice.AJUSTES:Los datos fueron extraídos y analizados de manera retrospectiva de la base de datos GRECCAR 7.PACIENTES:Pacientes diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal durante los dos años del estudio GRECCAR 7.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se estudiaron varios datos recopilados de manera prospectiva sobre los síntomas en esta población. También estudiamos el intervalo promedio entre la cirugía reparadora de la hernia paraestomal así como también la cirugía índice como el diagnóstico de la hernia paraestomal.RESULTADOS:De entre los 199 pacientes incluidos en el estudio GRECCAR, 36 pacientes (35,6%) fueron diagnosticados con hernia paraestomal de manera clínica y/o radiológica en el grupo sin malla a los 2 años de seguimiento y 33 (33,7%) en el grupo con malla, sin diferencia estadísticamente significativa ( p = 0,89). Ninguno de los síntomas estudiados mostró diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio se basa en un número relativamente pequeño de pacientes y, aunque los datos fueron recopilados de forma prospectiva, nos faltaron algunos detalles sobre la categorización de las hernias paraestomales.CONCLUSIONES:Creemos que ya no se debe recomendar el uso de una malla protésica en posición retromuscular para prevenir la hernia paraestomal en pacientes con colostomía terminal. (Traducción-Dr. Osvaldo Gauto ).

The Usage of Mesh and Relevant Prognosis in Implant Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

Although mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery is emerging as the primary surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, mesh use remains controversial in implant breast reconstruction surgery, especially in terms of how to select the ideal mesh. Our aim is to elaborate relevant prognosis in the mesh-based implant breast reconstruction surgery. Relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane library searches. Extracted data included study type, basic characteristics, mesh information, complications, etc. We analyzed the included cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that reported mesh-related implant breast reconstruction complications and breast quality scale scores. A total of 32 studies including 7475 subjects were included. The results showed that the overall complication rate was 2.07 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (risk ratio [RR]: 2.07, 95% CI 1.14-3.78). The risk of seroma was 4.50 times higher in the biological mesh group than in the synthetic mesh group (RR: 4.50, 95% CI 2.27-8.95). In terms of comparing breast quality scale scores, the mesh group had scores that were 1.49 (95% CI 0.19-2.78) higher than the non-mesh group for "physical well-being" and 2.05 (95% CI 0.08-4.02) higher for "sexual well-being." Our study found that the risk of total complications was higher with biological mesh than with synthetic mesh in implant breast reconstruction surgery. Based on short-term cost, healthcare burden, and healthcare benefits, synthetic meshes are superior to biological meshes. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Higher rate of chronic pain in young men after open mesh vs nonmesh repair of elective primary unilateral indirect inguinal hernia: A nationwide questionnaire study

PurposeYoung age is a risk factor for chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair, but the role of the mesh in young patients is uncertain. The aim of this study was to assess chronic pain after open mesh versus non-mesh repair of indirect inguinal hernia in young men. Materials and methodsValidated questionnaires were sent to men aged 18–29 years at the time of an elective primary unilateral open repair of an indirect inguinal hernia between 1998 and 2015. Patients were identified in the Danish Hernia Database. Non-mesh repairs were matched 1:3 with mesh repairs (Lichtenstein) on age and follow-up time. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with chronic pain evaluated with the Activity assessment scale. Secondary outcomes included other pain measures and sexual impairment. ResultsIn total, 661 patients were included in this study (77% mesh and 23% non-mesh) with a median follow-up of 14.8 years (range 2.3–20.0) in the mesh group and 15.9 years (range 3.6–20.0) in the non-mesh group. For the primary outcome, 12% of patients in the mesh group compared with 6% in the non-mesh group had chronic pain (p=0.03). Patients in the mesh group had higher odds of chronic pain in adjusted analysis (OR=2.30 [95% confidence interval=1.11–4.77]). More patients in the mesh group had pain during sexual activity (p=0.01), but there were no differences for most of the remaining secondary outcomes. ConclusionYoung men had a higher rate of chronic pain after open mesh compared with non-mesh repair for indirect inguinal hernia, but results should be interpreted with caution.

Patient-reported outcomes of mesh in minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) immediate subpectoral prosthesis breast reconstruction: a retrospective study.

Although there is increasing interest in minimally invasive prosthesis breast reconstruction (PBR), whether meshes application in minimally invasive PBR can improve complications and cosmetic effects remains controversial. The author retrospectively analyzed postoperative complications and evaluated patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in minimally invasive PBR with and without mesh. This study enrolled patients who underwent minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) followed by PBR. We used the TiLOOP bra for the mesh-assisted procedure. Patient demographics and postoperative complications data were compared between the procedures. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with the Breast-Q. A total of 158 patients underwent 160 minimally invasive NSM-PBR (with mesh, n = 64; without, n = 94). Postoperative complications were comparable in the mesh-assisted (5 [7.7%]) and non-mesh-assisted (5 [5.3%]) groups (p = 0.533). The most common complication in non-mesh-assisted group was infection, with four (4.2%) cases. In mesh-assisted group, implant exposure occurred in two (3.1%) patients. Removal of prosthesis was uncommon, with two (3.1%) and three (3.2%) cases in the mesh-assisted and non-mesh groups, respectively (p = 0.977). The BREAST-Q questionnaire was completed by 52 (81.3%) patients in the mesh-assisted group and 68 (72.3%) in the non-mesh-assisted group. Comparing the non-mesh group, patients in mesh-assisted group had improved scores on the BREAST-Q Satisfaction with breast (66.0) (p < 0.05), Physical Well-being (80.0), and Sexual Well-being (56.0). Mesh-assisted minimally invasive NSM-PBR has good aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction. There were no significant differences in complication rates between the mesh-assisted and non-mesh-assisted groups.

Clinical Efficacy of Modified Nonmesh Sacral Colpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Importance As an increasing number of mesh-related complications have been reported, the availability of nonmesh alternatives becomes crucial for situations where mesh is not desired or unavailable. A new modified procedure of nonmesh laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) was performed in our department, which used a nonabsorbable polyester suture (Ethibond) combined with uterosacral ligament suspension. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the modified procedure in comparison with traditional LSC in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Methods This retrospective study assessed the treatment outcomes of 60 patients who were underwent LSC with or without mesh from January 2017 to April 2019. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of mesh during the operation: mesh group (n = 34) and nonmesh group (n = 26). General data, perioperative indexes, postoperative complications, and recurrence rates were comparatively analyzed between 2 groups. Results In perioperative indexes, the nonmesh group exhibited shorter operation time (P &lt; 0.001) and less intraoperative blood loss compared with the mesh group (P = 0.004). There was no significant difference in postoperative indwelling urinary catheter duration (P = 0.425) and hospitalization time (P = 0.827) between the 2 groups. In postoperative complications, the incidence of postoperative complications showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (P &gt; 0.05). No occurrences of mesh exposure and erosion were observed in the mesh group during at least a 2-year follow-up period. In postoperative recurrence, none of the patients in either group experienced prolapse recurrence. Conclusions In comparison with the traditional LSC with mesh, the modified laparoscopic nonmesh sacral colpopexy presents advantages of reduced surgical trauma, less pain, and lower cost. However, a long-term and large sample study is required for evaluating the surgery’s long-term efficacy.

Wound healing and hernia after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: Onlay self-gripping polyester mesh reinforcement compared with small bite sutured closure.

Prophylactic mesh implantation following open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm is a debatable subject. To assess the efficacy of a self-gripping polyester mesh used in on-lay technique to prevent incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 495 patients who underwent aortic surgery between May 2017 and May 2021. Patients included in the study underwent open surgical repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with closure of the abdominal wall with either small bite suture technique or prophylactic mesh reinforcement. Primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of incisional hernia during a two-year follow-up period. Secondary endpoints were mesh-related complications. Mesh implantation with the on-lay technique was successful in all cases. No patient in the mesh group developed an incisional hernia during the 24-month follow-up period. Two patients in the non-mesh group developed a symptomatic incisional hernia during the follow-up period at 6 months. Three cases of post-operative access site complications were observed in the mesh group. Application of a self-gripping polyester mesh using the on-lay technique demonstrates acceptable early-durability after open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. However, it appears to be associated with a number of post-operative access site complications.

Is it meaningful to add mesh reinforcement to laparoscopic fundoplication for esophageal hiatal hernias in the patients with high risk of hiatal hernia recurrence?

While laparoscopic fundoplication is a standard surgical procedure for patients with esophageal hiatal hernias, the postoperative recurrence of esophageal hiatal hernias is a problem for patients with giant hernias, elderly patients, or obese patients. Although there are some reports indicating that reinforcement with mesh is effective, there are differing opinions regarding the use thereof. The aim of this study is to investigate whether mesh reinforcement is effective for laparoscopic fundoplication in patients with esophageal hiatus hernias. The subjects included 280 patients who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication as the initial surgery for giant esophageal hiatal hernias, elderly patients aged 75 years or older, and obese patients with a BMI of 28 or higher, who were considered at risk of recurrent hiatal hernias based on the previous reports. Of the subject patients, 91 cases without mesh and 86 cases following the stabilization of mesh use were extracted to compare the postoperative course including the pathology, symptom scores, surgical outcome, and recurrence of esophageal hiatus hernias. The preoperative conditions indicated that the degree of esophageal hiatal hernias was high in the mesh group (p = 0.0001), while the preoperative symptoms indicated that the score of heartburn was high in the non-mesh group (p = 0.0287). Although the surgical results indicated that the mesh group underwent a longer operation time (p < 0.0001) and a higher frequency of intraoperative complications (p = 0.037), the rate of recurrence of esophageal hiatal hernia was significantly low (p = 0.049), with the rate of postoperative reflux esophagitis also tending to be low (p = 0.083). Mesh reinforcement in laparoscopic fundoplication for esophageal hiatal hernias contributes to preventing the recurrence of esophageal hiatal hernias when it comes to patient options based on these criteria.

Comparing Complications of Biologic and Synthetic Mesh in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background In breast reconstruction, synthetic meshes are frequently used to replace acellular dermal matrix (ADM), since ADM is expensive and often leads to complications. However, there is limited evidence that compares the types of substitutes. This study aimed to compare complications between materials via a network meta-analysis. Methods We systematically reviewed studies reporting any type of complication from 2010 to 2021. The primary outcomes were the proportion of infection, seroma, major complications, or contracture. We classified the intervention into four categories: ADM, absorbable mesh, nonabsorbable mesh, and nothing used. We then performed a network meta-analysis between these categories and estimated the odds ratio with random-effect models. Results Of 603 searched studies through the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases, following their review by two independent reviewers, 61 studies were included for full-text reading, of which 17 studies were finally included. There was a low risk of bias in the included studies, but only an indirect comparison between absorbable and non-absorbable mesh was possible. Infection was more frequent in ADM but not in the two synthetic mesh groups, namely the absorbable or nonabsorbable types, compared with the nonmesh group. The proportion of seroma in the synthetic mesh group was lower (odds ratio was 0.2 for the absorbable and 0.1 for the nonabsorbable mesh group) than in the ADM group. Proportions of major complications and contractures did not significantly differ between groups. Conclusion Compared with ADM, synthetic meshes have low infection and seroma rates. However, more studies concerning aesthetic outcomes and direct comparisons 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.

Use of prophylactic stoma mesh is a risk factor for developing rectus abdominis muscle atrophy

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the possible risk factors for developing a parastomal hernia (PSH) in a cohort of rectal cancer patients with and without the application of a retro-muscular prophylactic mesh. The evaluated risk factors included the position of the stoma in the rectus abdominis muscle (RAM), RAM atrophy and shift of abdominal wall midline structures.MethodsRectal cancer patients treated with an abdominoperineal excision or Hartmann’s procedure between 2002 and 2015 at Västmanland Hospital, Sweden was included. Postoperative CT examinations were retrospectively reviewed regarding the presence of PSH and RAM atrophy and for measurements such as position of the stoma in the RAM.Results116 patients were included, with a median age of 71 years. 70 patients received a prophylactic stoma mesh. 55 patients (47%) had a parastomal hernia at three-year follow-up. Rectus abdominis muscle atrophy was significantly higher in the mesh group compared with the non-mesh group (37% vs 2%; P = 0.04). RAM atrophy was a significant independent protective factor for developing a PSH (P = 0.007; OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03–0.55).ConclusionPlacement of a prophylactic retro-muscular stoma mesh resulted in a high frequency of RAM atrophy distal to the stomal aperture and patients with such atrophy had a lower risk of developing a PSH.

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.

Repair of giant incisional hernias

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias are one of the most common postoperative complications encountered by surgeons in daily practice. In our study, we compared the component separation technique (CST) with and without synthetic mesh in large incisional hernia surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The files of 79 patients who underwent surgery for giant incisional hernia between January 2016 and November 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: CST with mesh reinforcement (mesh+ group) and CST without mesh reinforcement (non-mesh group). The groups were compared in terms of recurrence, complications, and other clinical features. RESULTS: There were 36 patients in the mesh+ group and 38 patients in the non-mesh group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographic parameters and clinical features. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of recurrence rate (P = 0.007, OR = 0.17). In addition, there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of mean operation times (2.8 h and 1.9 h for mesh+ and non-mesh, respectively) (P = 0.000, 95% CI). Regardless of the use of mesh, recurrence was significantly higher in the presence of high body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.003, 95% CI) and comorbidity (P = 0.031, OR = 3.4). CONCLUSION: Repair of giant incisional hernias with mesh-reinforced CST is superior to the non-mesh technique in terms of hernia recurrence. Although CST without mesh reinforcement seems advantageous in terms of complications and operation time, we believe that the mesh-reinforced CST should be applied in suitable patients when the total cost, recurrence, and patient satisfaction are taken into account.

MEASUREMENT OF FORCE DURING LAPAROSCOPIC CRURORAPHY TO DEFINE INDICATION TO MESH IMPLANTS

The aim of the study was to study the indications for the use of mesh implants in patients with large hiatal hernias, depending on the tension of the crura. Materials and methods. Using a Walcom Fm-204-50k digital force gauge, we measured the force of crural tension during laparoscopic cruroraphy in 115 patients who met the inclusion criteria for participation in the study. All patients underwent intraoperative measurement of the tension force of the crura during the crura repair. All patients, whose tensile strength during measurement was &gt; 4 N (n=69), were randomly divided into two groups. The first group included 30 patients who underwent hiatal hernia repair using a collagen-coated Parietex mesh implant. The second group included 39 patients who underwent simple suturing of the crura (cruroraphy). Results. The main and control groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, gender, quality indicator and the area of hiatal surface (p&gt;0.05). According to the results of measuring the tension of the sutures during cruroraphy, the average tensile force of the suture closest to the esophagus was 5.2 (from 4.0 to 8.2 N). When performing anterior cruroraphy, the tensile force of the seams averaged 3.5 N (from 2.4 to 4.7 N). Over an average follow-up period of 48 months, anatomical relapses were revealed in 1 patient of group I and in 6 patients of group II (p=0.004). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the mesh implant group (p=0.004). The mesh group showed a greater improvement in GERD-HRQL (p&lt;0.0001) compared to the non-mesh group. Conclusion. Laparoscopic repair of large hiatal hernias using a collagen-coated Parietex mesh implant in patients with a cruraraphy suture pull force &gt; 4 N is safe and can prevent anatomical recurrence. Key words: hernia of the esophageal orifice of the diaphragm, laparoscopic cruroraphy, measuring the tension of the seams of the cruroraphy.

O01 PROPHYLACTIC MESH PLACEMENT DURING FORMATION OF AN END-COLOSTOMY LONG TERM RCT ON EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY

Abstract Aim To determine if prophylactic mesh placement is an effective, safe, and cost-effective procedure to prevent parastomal hernia (PSH) formation in the long term. Material and Methods In this multicenter superiority trial patients undergoing formation of a permanent colostomy were randomly assigned to either retromuscular mesh reinforcement or conventional colostomy formation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a PSH after 5 years. Secondary endpoints were morbidity, mortality, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Results A total of 150 patients were randomly assigned to the mesh group (n = 72) or non-mesh group (n = 78). For the long term follow up, we could analyse 113 patients since 37 patients were lost to follow-up. After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 48.6 – 64.4), 49 patients developed a PSH, 20 (27.8%) in the mesh group and 29 (37.2%) in the non-mesh group (p = 0.22; 95% CI -24 – 5.5). A total of 25 patients developed an incisional hernia, seven in the mesh group (10.4%) versus 18 in the non-mesh group (27.2%) (p = 0.013, 95% CI 3.5 – 30.0). No relevant differences were found in quality of life or cost-effectiveness between both study group. Conclusions Use of a prophylactic retromuscular mesh at the ostomy site delays but not reduces the incidence of PSH after 5 years of follow-up. It leads to less severe PSH according to the EHS and MM classification with fewer repairs needed. Furthermore it causes patients to have fewer stoma related complications necessitating change of appliances and it is safe without any adverse events or increase in morbidity.

Long-Term Dynamic Changes in Cosmetic Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction after Implant-Based Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction and Contralateral Mastopexy with or without an Ultrapro Mesh Sling Used for the Inner Bra Technique. A Retrospective Correlational Study.

Simple SummaryImmediate implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction (IPMBR) with contralateral symmetrization has mostly short-term limited evidence of cosmetic outcomes. Ageing after IPMBR and symmetrization may contribute to symmetry worsening. This non-interventional retrospective correlational study presents the clinical and aesthetic results of synthetic ULTRAPRO® mesh inner bra sling symmetrization mastopexy with standard mastopexies. A total of 59 patients were enrolled in the mesh group (MG), and 58 patients were enrolled in the non-mesh group (NMG). There were no significant differences in surgical complications (p = 0.521; chi-square. The median sternal notch-to-nipple distance difference was 1 cm in the MG and 3.5 cm in the NMG from the last follow-up, and the median nipple-to-inferior mammary fold distance differences were 0.5 cm and 0.75 cm. ULTRAPRO® mesh sling symmetrization can be successfully used to decrease pseudoptosis and nipple down-migration, offering a safe alternative for long-lasting symmetry and high patient satisfaction.Immediate implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction (IPMBR) with contralateral symmetrization has mostly short-term limited evidence of cosmetic outcomes. Because 84% of early-stage breast cancer patients have overall survival of more than 10 years, reconstructed breast symmetry should provide long-lasting results and acceptable patient satisfaction. Ageing, changes in body weight, and biomechanical changes after IPMBR and symmetrization may contribute to symmetry worsening. This non-interventional single-centre retrospective correlational study presents the clinical and aesthetic results of synthetic ULTRAPRO® mesh inner bra sling symmetrization mastopexy with standard mastopexies. According to the results, a total of 59 patients were enrolled in the mesh group (MG), and 58 patients were enrolled in the non-mesh group (NMG). There were no significant differences in surgical complications (p = 0.521; chi-square). The median sternal notch-to-nipple distance difference was 1 cm in the MG and 3.5 cm in the NMG from the last follow-up, and the median nipple-to-inferior mammary fold distance differences were 0.5 cm and 0.75 cm. The mesh did not hinder the follow-up investigation. In conclusion, ULTRAPRO® mesh sling symmetrization can be successfully used to decrease pseudoptosis and nipple down-migration, offering a safe alternative for long-lasting symmetry and high patient satisfaction.

Long-term Device Outcomes of Mesh Implants in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repairs.

To evaluate the longer-term safety and reintervention outcomes of mesh implants in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repairs. We conducted a population-based cohort study of women undergoing POP repairs in inpatient and outpatient surgical settings between 2008 and 2016 in New York State. Multivariable logistic regression was used based on patient and procedural characteristics and hospital volume between mesh and nonmesh groups to obtain propensity scores for each individual. Long-term safety events and reinterventions were assessed using time-to-event analysis. We identified 54,194 women undergoing POP repairs (12,989 with mesh, and 41,205 without mesh). Mean age was 59.8 (±13.1) years, and median follow-up was 4.7 years (interquartile range, 2.4-6.8 years). In the propensity score-matched 12,284 pairs of women, POP repair with mesh was associated with a higher risk of reintervention when compared with POP repair without transvaginal mesh (hazard ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.27-1.54, P<.001). The estimated risk of undergoing a reintervention at 5 years was 8.8% (95% CI 8.2-9.3%) in the mesh group and 6.3% (5.9-6.8%) in the nonmesh group. Among patients who had reinterventions, 18.5% of those operated with mesh had a reintervention related to mesh-related complications. Even though transvaginal mesh has been removed from the market, the risk of mesh complications did not diminish over time and these women warrant close follow-up. Continued surveillance of mesh in POP repairs is essential to ensure safety for the women who have already been implanted.

Abdominal wall closure with prophylactic mesh in colorectal operations.

Prospective studies demonstrate that over one-third of patients undergoing standard suture closure of laparotomy wounds will develop incisional hernias (IHs). Whilst prophylactic mesh has been demonstrated to decrease IH rates in clean laparotomy wounds, mesh has been associated with high rates of seroma formation (>30%), infection (>10%) and pain, discouraging many surgeons from using mesh, especially combined with intestinal surgery. The aim of this study is to review the experience of a single colorectal surgeon who, after noting high IH rates in his own patients, started placing prophylactic mesh routinely in patients judged to be at high risk of IH. The records of all patients undergoing bowel resections and ileostomy closure by one surgeon from 2008 to 2018 were independently retrospectively analysed. Of the 935 procedures identified, 662 patients underwent midline laparotomy with bowel resection and 273 patients underwent closure of loop ileostomy. Mesh was placed prophylactically in 221 (23.6%) of 935 procedures. Comparing the mesh and non-mesh groups, wound infections occurred in nine (4.1%) versus 23 (3.2%) (P = 0.53), seromas occurred in nine (4.1%) versus six (0.8%) (P = 0.003) and chronic pain was noted in 12 (5.4%) versus 17 (2.4%) (P = 0.04). The mean follow-up was 33 months in both the mesh and non-mesh groups. IHs have occurred in three (1.3%) of the mesh group compared to 95 (13.3%) of the non-mesh group procedures (P = 0.0001). In colorectal operations, prophylactic mesh decreases the risk of IH without prohibitive complications.

A single-blind, randomized controlled study to compare Desarda technique with Lichtenstein technique by evaluating short- and long-term outcomes after 3 years of follow-up in primary inguinal hernias

BACKGROUND: Lichtenstein tension-free repair is associated with postoperative complications and dysfunctions; hence, there is a need to look for a new hernia repair techniques while retaining its advantages. Desarda technique is a physiologic repair and essentially restores physiology of the inguinal canal. This single-blind, randomized controlled study was conducted to compare Desarda with Lichtenstein technique evaluating short- and long-term outcomes after 3 years of follow-up in primary inguinal hernias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty-three adult male patients with primary inguinal hernia (both direct and indirect) were randomly allocated intraoperatively to Lichtenstein repair, Mesh (M) Group or Desarda repair, nonmesh (NM) Group. Baseline characteristics were recorded before the surgery. Short- and long-term outcomes and patients responses on patient global impression of change (PGIC) and Prolo scale after surgery were recorded. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were assigned to NM and 61 to M group. Surgery time was significantly higher for M group (P CONCLUSIONS: After 3 years of follow-up, Lichtenstein technique and Desarda technique results were similar. After considering the pros and cons of both the methods, a tailor-made approach is required while choosing a procedure for hernia repair.