Posterior Mesh Research Articles

Fixation of the Posterior Mesh in Abdominal Posterior Prolapse Repair Following a Sacrocolpopexy: is Utero-Sacral Fixation Superior Regarding Postoperative Outcomes? Results of a Monocentric Tertiary Center

Objective: Two proximal fixation techniques can be used for posterior mesh following a sacrocolpopexy on patients with a posterior compartment prolapse (presacral ligament or utero-sacral ligaments). The objective of this study was to compare the functional outcomes of patients who received either fixation technique. Methodology: Retrospective cohort of all patients who underwent anterior and posterior prolapse repair in between 2013 and 2017 at a tertiary center. Patients were allocated to one of two groups. Group A included patients who underwent fixation of the proximal posterior mesh to the presacral ligament, and Group B fixation of the mesh to the utero-sacral ligaments. The primary outcome was the evaluation of defecatory symptom correction at 3 months following surgery. Prolapse examination was performed using the Baden Walker classification system. Results: A total of 59 patients (21 in Group A, 38 in Group B) underwent sacrocolpopexy with posterior repair between 2013 and 2017. Median follow-up was 7.8 months. Operative time was significantly faster in group B (150 min vs 180 min, p=0.003). At 3 months following surgery, there was greater correction of heaviness sensation in Group B than in Group A (93.3% vs 56.2%, p=0.003), as well as vulvar protrusion sensation correction (88.5% vs 52.9%, p=0.009). There was also higher correction of chronic pelvic pain in Group B (90% vs 25%, p=0.015) and constipation (72.7% vs 20%, p=0.016) when compared to Group A. Conclusion: Sacro-uteral fixation of the proximal part of a posterior mesh prolapse repair seemingly provides better defecatory symptom correction outcomes following surgery.

Intrafascial Colpotomy, Edge-to-Edge Closure, and Peritoneal Graft Technique for Minimizing Mesh Erosion in Concurrent Robotic Hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy.

Sacrocolpopexy (SCP) is a recognized treatment for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). However, mesh erosion remains a concern, particularly when performed with concomitant hysterectomy. This video presents data on one case of a modified technique aimed at potentially minimizing mesh erosion in robotic SCP. This technique focuses on reinforcing the vaginal cuff and using a pedicled peritoneal graft to create a tissue barrier between the mesh and the vaginal vault. Procedural steps include intrafascial colpotomy, edge-to-edge cuff closure using barbed sutures, and joining anterior and posterior meshes away from the vaginal cuff. The surgical technique was successfully implemented in this single patient presented in the video and was performed in ten more patients with no intraoperative or postoperative complications. During the follow-up period, there were no signs of mesh erosion or exposure. This approach emphasizing vaginal cuff strengthening and mesh separation using a pedicled peritoneal graft can be an option for reducing mesh erosion risk. This report does not provide definitive evidence that this approach reduces mesh erosion risk and further research and long-term follow-up are required to validate these findings and integrate this technique into standard management practices.

Systematic literature review and meta-analysisof surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse in male patients.

Rectal prolapse often affects women but may also affect men. This systematic review aimed to provide outcomes of surgery for complete rectal prolapse reported in studies with a predominantly male population. This PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review searched PubMed and Scopus between January 2000 and February 2024; Google Scholar was queried for studies reporting outcomes of complete rectal prolapse surgery in predominately (> 90%) male populations. Main outcome measures were recurrence, complications, operative time, and bowel function. Eight studies (452 patients; median age 45.6years) were included; 80.5% of patients underwent abdominal procedures whereas 19.5% underwent perineal procedures. The prevalenceof recurrence was 11.2% after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR), 0.8% after posterior mesh rectopexy (PMR), 0 after resection rectopexy, and 19.3% after perineal procedures. The prevalenceof complications was 13.9% after VMR, 13.1% after PMR, 43.3% after resection rectopexy, and 17.4% after perineal procedures. The most improvement in constipation was notedafter resection rectopexy (83.3-100%) and in fecal incontinence (FI) was notedafter posterior mesh rectopexy (86.4-90%). Abdominal procedures had lower rates of recurrence (6% vs. 19.3%, RR 0.50, 95%CI 0.21-1.18, p = 0.113), similar complication rates (14.3% vs. 13.6%, RR 0.41, 95%CI 0.06-2.9, p = 0.374), and longer operative times (116 ± 47.2 vs. 74.2 ± 23.6min, p < 0.001). Treatment of rectal prolapse in male patients undergoing abdominal procedures was associated with longer operative times, lower recurrence rates, and similar complications to perineal procedures. PMR and resection rectopexy had the lowest recurrence. The most improvement in FI and constipation was noted after PMR and resection rectopexy, respectively.

Transrectus Extraperitoneal Versus Minimally Invasive Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: Recent guidelines have recommended minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for unilateral inguinal hernia due to reduced chronic pain. The most performed approaches consist of posterior mesh placement by the transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP) techniques. However, it remains debatable whether the advantage of those techniques stems from the MIS approach or posterior mesh placement or both. As the transrectus preperitoneal (TREPP) technique is an open option for posterior mesh placement, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing TREPP and MIS techniques for groin hernia repair. Material and Methods: Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Scielo, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing TREPP and MIS techniques for groin hernia repair. Outcomes assessed were recurrence, cumulative surgical site occurrences (SSO), surgical site infection (SSI), and postoperative pain. Results: Twenty-nine studies were screened, and eight were thoroughly reviewed. Three studies were included, of which two compared TREPP with the TEP technique, and one compared TREPP with both TEP and TAPP techniques. We found lower SSI rates for the MIS approaches (0.61% versus 0.33%; risk ratios (RRs) 3.96; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-15.16; P = .04). We did not find statistically significant differences regarding recurrence (2.42% versus 2.51%; RR 1.01; P = .98), postoperative pain (4.2% versus 6.4%; RR 0.61; P = .4), and SSO (4.2% versus 4.0%; RR 0.6; P = .43) between TREPP and MIS techniques. Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found a lower SSI for the MIS repair but did not find differences regarding recurrence, SSO, and postoperative pain. More studies are required to provide a more accurate conclusion about this topic.

WP1.11 - Total Extra Peritoneal (TEP) Inguinal hernia repair is safe and feasible for recurrent inguinal hernia post Total Extra Peritoneal repair "TEP on TEP is possible”

Abstract This abstract share our experience in surgical management of recurrent inguinal hernia post total extra peritoneal (TEP) repair by utilizing the same approach TEP. Methods Two patients with recurrent inguinal hernia post TEP were consulted for laparoscopic VS open approach, and both opted for the laparoscopic approach, understanding the higher risk of conversion. Result The first case of 62y male with recurrent left inguinal hernia after bilateral TEP. The second case of 69y male with recurrent left inguinal hernia post lap TEP repair. Standard three lower midline ports technique, no balloon spacer was used. The first and most important step was developing the plane above the previous mesh. 20 ml of 1 % xylocaine and 1/200000 was instilled in the extra peritoneal space to minimize oozing. Separating the previous mesh from the inferior epigastric artery and posterior wall of rectus muscle, down into bony lard marks and cord structures was performed using suction and sharp dissection with minimal diathermy. All landmarks were exposed in the three zones, before utilizing anatomical mesh. Both patients stayed overnight and operation time was 84 and 90 minute respectively. Three months follow up showed no recurrence or significant pain. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is first study describe the use of TEP on TEP. It suggests that TEP should not be excluded in patients with previous posterior mesh repair, emphasizing the importance of proper consultation. The abstract calls for further cases and studies to assess the efficacy and safety of this approach.

Reduced port laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse

BackgroundLaparoscopic rectopexy is an established treatment option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Recently, reduced port surgery (RPS) has emerged as a novel concept, offering reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes compared with conventional multiport surgery (MPS). This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of RPS for full-thickness rectal prolapse.MethodsFrom October 2012 to December 2018, 37 patients (MPS: 10 cases, RPS: 27 cases) underwent laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy (Wells procedure) is the standard technique for full-thickness rectal prolapse at our hospital. RPS was performed using a multi-channel access device, with an additional 12-mm right-hand port. Short-term outcomes were retrospectively compared between MPS and RPS.ResultsNo significant differences were observed between MPS and RPS in the median operative time, the median blood loss volume, the postoperative complication rates, and median hospital stay duration after surgery.ConclusionReduced port laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy may serve as an effective therapeutic option for full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, to establish the superiority of RPS over MPS, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial is warranted.

Improvement in Quality of Life after Laparoscopic or Robotic-assisted Sacrocolpopexy with a Single Anterior Mesh in Patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Analysis from a Single Institution.

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a significant health-care problem for older women. We have treated POP surgically using laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) or robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC). The original LSC and RSC procedures were done with anterior and posterior meshes; however, the use of the single mesh procedure is increasing because of its simplicity and safety. There have been few reports about the change in quality of life (QOL) using the single mesh procedure. Therefore, the present study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the change in QOL by LSC and RSC using a single anterior mesh for women without posterior compartment prolapse. We performed LSC or RSC using a single anterior mesh in 52 patients who had POP without posterior vaginal wall prolapse between August 2018 and October 2022. We assessed the QOL before and after surgery using prolapse-QOL (P-QOL) questionnaires. All patients who received LSC or RSC with a single anterior mesh left the hospital as scheduled without severe perioperative complications. There were no instances of wound infection or vaginal mesh extrusion. The recovery rate of questionnaires was 63.5% (33/52). All QOL score domains improved significantly, and there were no questionnaire parameters that worsened. LSC or RSC using only a single anterior mesh improves P-QOL with a low incidence of surgical complications for POP patients who did not have posterior vaginal wall prolapse. LSC or RSC with a single anterior mesh may be a prospective new procedure for POP.

Methodology for vNOTES Sacrocolpopexy with Transvaginal Mesh Retroperitonealization and Tensioning

Background: Laparoscopy has the potential of making procedures less invasive with a lower complication profile while being more appealing to patients due to ease of recovery and cosmesis. Sacrocolpopexy has traditionally been performed through the abdominal route with limited reports of transvaginal applications. Methods: Our study aims to provide a step-by-step approach to performing a vNOTES sacrocolpopexy with appropriate tensioning and peritoneal coverage of the mesh used based on both cadaveric and live patient experience. This systematic description of a fully laparoscopic transvaginal apical suspension with mesh attachment to the sacrum being completely retroperitoneal and the mesh retroperitoneal and covered at the conclusion of the case. Results: Successful vNOTES Sacrocolpopexy is performed and reproduced, with transvaginal complete peritoneal coverage and tensioning of the mesh. Total vaginal length (TVL) of 9 cm in both live and cadaveric patients. The steps of the procedure include 1. A vNOTES laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy is completed. 2. A 0-Prolene suture is attached longitudinally to the sacral arm of a precut (Y) mesh or any single layer Type I polypropylene mesh piece, placed from the sacral arm to the distal edge of the mesh forming a “U” shape with the bottom of the “U” ultimately attaching to the anterior longitudinal ligament. 3. To begin the SCP procedure after completion of the vaginal hysterectomy, dissection of the presacral mesh attachment site begins by entering the retroperitoneal space, slightly right of midline at the level of the ischial spine, lateral to the rectum and medial to the uterosacral ligament. 4. Once the dissection is completed with appropriate exposure of the anterior longitudinal ligament at the sacral promontory, the sacral mesh is attached to the anterior longitudinal ligament at the S1-2 level, ideally with a tacker under direct visualization. 5. Two sutures, one on each side of the tunnel, are placed on the cephalad edge of the sacral peritoneal incision and labeled. After removing the Gelport, two more absorbable sutures are attached to the anterior peritoneum of the anterior vaginal wall in the proximity of the bladder, around 3 cm on each side of the midline. These peritoneal sutures in each of the above two steps will later be tied together to help cover the arms of the mesh. 6. Before mesh arm attachment, each area on the anterior and posterior vaginal walls is dissected off respective tissue (bladder and perineal body/rectovaginal fascia) and then everted for mesh attachment. 7. Both anterior and posterior mesh pieces are sutured to their respective vaginal walls with six interrupted sutures. Each mesh arm will have several centimeters of mesh freely hanging off both anterior and posterior cuff edges. These edges can be trimmed to 2 cm past the vaginal cuff edge. 8. All three pieces of mesh are stacked together and serially threaded from anterior mesh to posterior mesh, ensuring each mesh piece remains aligned (Figure 1). Each U suture is then passed through the free ends of the anterior and posterior mesh pieces and then secured with a hemostat. The cut edges of the suture can either be aligned at the back of the posterior arm to permit retroperitonealization of the knot or placement at the vaginal apex abutting the vaginal cuff. 9. Peritoneal closure is achieved by tying a posterior tunnel suture to each respective anterior vaginal wall suture at each lateral edge of the tunnel incision. 10. The vaginal cuff closure begins with a Vicryl suture anchored at the patient’s right forniceal edge running it to midline while anchoring another suture at the left forniceal edge to permit the surgeon to tension the vaginal apex appropriately. 11. Mesh tensioning is achieved by placing a single digit through the remaining space left in the tunnel incision. A knot using the Prolene suture securing the overlapping mesh is tied extracorporeally and pushed through the vaginal cuff to mobilize the mesh crux cephalad, thus elevating the vaginal apex towards the sacrum. The elevation of this knot guides the vaginal length. 12. The remainder of the vaginal cuff is then closed while avoiding incorporation of the mesh into the suture line (the ideal distance from mesh Y-junction to cuff is 1-2cm). Conclusion: By describing an innovative and reproducible technique to perform vNOTES sacrocolpopexy based on cadaveric and live patient experience, we successfully demonstrate how to perform a laparoscopic transvaginal apical suspension with mesh attachment to the sacrum through retroperitoneal placement. The vNOTES approach for sacrocolpopexy may offer a viable alternative to the transabdominal approach for candidates with difficult transabdominal access while avoiding trocar injuries and reducing surgical costs.

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.

Diagnosis and management of complications following pelvic organ prolapse surgery using a synthetic mesh: French national guidelines for clinical practice

Diagnosis and management of complications following pelvic organ prolapse surgery using a synthetic mesh: French national guidelines for clinical practice

Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study.

The primary objective is to identify determinants of dissatisfaction after surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse ± rectal prolapse, using laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or sacrocolpopexy (LSC) ± ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The secondary objective is the evaluation of complications and objective/subjective recurrence rates. The study performed was a single-surgeon retrospective review of prospectively collected data. LSH/LSC ± VMR were performed between July 2005 and September 2022. Primary investigated outcome was patients' satisfaction, assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score and the bother visual analog scale (VAS) obtained postoperatively (at a 1-month interval and on a 6-month/yearly basis thereafter). We looked for a correlation between the level of satisfaction (as reflected by the VAS) and potential determinants. There were 355 patients with a mean age of 62 ±12 years. Nearly all the patients (94.3%) had a stage 3 or 4 prolapse according to the POP-Q classification. The mean postoperative bother VAS was 1.8, with only 12.7% of patients reporting a bother VAS score ≥ 3/10, indicating a dissatisfaction. PGI-I showed improvement in the vast majority of patients (96.4% scoring 1 to 3). Patients with anal incontinence preoperatively scored higher on the bother VAS postoperatively (r=0.175, p < 0.05). The use of a posterior arm mesh (for posterior vaginal prolapse) correlated with better satisfaction overall (r= -0.178, p = 0.001), whereas the performance of VMR was associated with a bothering sensation (r = 0.232, p < 0.001). A regression analysis confirmed the impact of posterior mesh and VMR on satisfaction levels, with odds of dissatisfaction being 2.18 higher when VMR was combined with LSH/LSC. Posterior mesh use improves patient satisfaction when the posterior compartment is affected. In patients with concomitant vaginal and rectal prolapse, combining VMR with anterior LSC/LSH appears to negatively impact patients' satisfaction. Preoperative anal incontinence was demonstrated to be a risk factor for postoperative dissatisfaction.

Open preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair has superior 1-year patient-reported outcomes compared to Shouldice non-mesh repair.

The Shouldice method for inguinal hernia repair remains the gold standard for prosthesis-free repairs. Nonetheless, international guidelines have favored posterior mesh reinforcement as the standard of care for inguinal hernia repair due to lower risk of recurrence and chronic pain, avoidance of general anesthesia, and favorable biomechanical properties. Recent publications have shown the benefits of an open approach to posterior repairs. Herein, we use the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) registry to compare patient-reported outcomes after a Shouldice no-mesh repair versus open preperitoneal (OPP) mesh repair. We performed a propensity score matched analysis to compare patient-reported quality of life (QoL) and peri/postoperative outcomes after a Shouldice repair versus OPP. Data from 2012 to 2022 were obtained from the ACHQC, and 1:1 optimal matching was performed. EuraHS scores were used to estimate QoL, and further analysis on the EuraHS domains of pain, aesthetics, and activity restriction were performed between the two cohorts. Matching resulted in 257 participants in each, Shouldice and OPP cohorts. OPP was associated with a better QoL score compared to Shouldice at 30days after surgery (Median (IQR) 7.75 (2.0-17.0) vs 13.0 (4.0-26.1); OR 0.559 [0.37, 0.84]; p = 0.003). This difference persisted at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively (OR 0.447 [0.26, 0.75] and 0.492 [0.26, 0.93], respectively). We did not observe any significant differences in hernia recurrence risk at 1-year, or rates of 30-day SSOs/SSIs, postoperative bleeding, peripheral nerve injury, DVTs, or UTIs. Our data suggest that OPP is associated with significantly better patient-reported QoL, in the first month after surgery and up to 1 year postoperatively, especially with respect to lesser pain, when compared to the Shouldice repair. In specialized inguinal hernia practices, open posterior mesh repairs may lead to better outcomes than non-mesh repairs. We encourage more training in both repairs to facilitate larger prospective studies and evaluation of the generalizability of these results to all surgeons performing IHR.

Improved patient-reported outcomes after open preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair compared to anterior Lichtenstein repair: 10-year ACHQC analysis

IntroductionThe Lichtenstein repair has been synonymous with “open” inguinal hernia repair (IHR) for 40 years. However, international guidelines have suggested that posterior mesh placement results in advantageous biomechanics and reduced risk of nerve-related chronic pain. Additionally, the use of local anesthetics has been shown to reduce postoperative pain and complication risks. An open transrectus preperitoneal/open preperitoneal (TREPP/OPP) repair combines posterior mesh placement with the use of local anesthetic and as such could be the ideal repair for primary inguinal hernia. Using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) registry, we compared open anterior mesh with open posterior mesh repairs.MethodsWe performed a propensity score matched analysis of patients undergoing open IHR between 2012 and 2022 in the ACHQC. After 1:1 optimal matching, both the TREPP/OPP and Lichtenstein cohorts were balanced with 451 participants in each group. Outcomes included patient-reported quality of life (QoL), hernia recurrence, and postoperative opioid use.ResultsImprovement was seen after TREPP/OPP in EuraHS QoL score at 30 days (OR 0.558 [0.408, 0.761]; p = 0.001), and the difference persisted at 1 year (OR 0.588 [0.346, 0.994]; p = 0.047). Patient-reported opioid use at 30-day follow-up was significantly lower in the TREPP/OPP cohort (OR 0.31 [0.20, 0.48]; p < 0.001). 30-day frequency of surgical-site occurrences was significantly higher in the Lichtenstein repair cohort (OR 0.22 [0.06–0.61]; p = 0.007). There were no statistically significant differences in hernia recurrence risk at 1 year, or rates of postoperative bleeding, peripheral nerve injury, DVTs, or UTIs.ConclusionOur analysis demonstrates a benefit of posterior mesh placement (TREPP/OPP) over anterior mesh placement (Lichtenstein) in open inguinal hernia repair in patient-reported QoL and reduced opioid use.

COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN POSTERIOR MESH RECTOPEXY AND VENTRAL MESH RECTOPEXY FOR TREATMENT OF OBSTRUCTED DEFECATION IN FEMALE PATIENTS WITH PELVIC FLOOR DISORDER

COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN POSTERIOR MESH RECTOPEXY AND VENTRAL MESH RECTOPEXY FOR TREATMENT OF OBSTRUCTED DEFECATION IN FEMALE PATIENTS WITH PELVIC FLOOR DISORDER

P-057 EFFECTS ON SURGICAL QUALITY, TRAINING, AND RESEARCH ON INGUINAL HERNIA AFTER CENTRALIZATION OF PLANNED INGUINAL HERNIA SURGERY IN A REGION

Abstract Aims Evaluate the effects of centralization of inguinal hernia surgery in Region Halland in Sweden on surgical quality, training and research on inguinal hernia. Methods Comparison of outcomes for Region Halland in relation to the national average in the Swedish Hernia Register before and after centralization. Review of how training and research on inguinal hernia changed after centralization. Results The percentage of patients operated on by “inguinal hernia specialists” increased from nearly 40% in 2008 to 90% in 2019. 20% of the surgeons operating &amp;gt; 90 hernias/year in Sweden are active in Region Halland, even though Region Halland only performs 4% of all inguinal hernia operations in Sweden. The risk of reoperation 3 years after inguinal hernia decreased from nearly 100% greater to 30% less than the national average (4% to 1.7%). The percentage of women that underwent the recommended posterior mesh surgeries increased from 5% (2007) to 90% (2019). The percentage of patients with bilateral hernias operated with TEP-TAPP increased from 5% (2007) to 98% (2020). After centralization residents’ training was formalized including at least 30 operation/resident. Halland runs one of the two national courses on TEP/TAPP. Peer-review publications on inguinal hernias increased from 2 to 6 articles. Conclusion The quality of inguinal hernia surgery and training of residents became better after centralization. The number of region-conducted research projects on inguinal hernia increased after centralization.

A network meta-analysis of surgical treatments of complete rectal prolapse.

Surgical treatment of complete rectal prolapse can be undertaken via an abdominal or a perineal approach. The present network meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of different abdominal and perineal procedures for rectal prolapse in terms of recurrence, complications, and improvement in fecal incontinence (FI). A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized clinical trials comparing two or more procedures for the treatment of complete rectal prolapse were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the ROB-2 tool. The main outcomes were recurrence of full-thickness rectal prolapse, complications, operation time, and improvement in FI. Nine randomized controlled trials with 728 patients were included. The follow-up ranged between 12 and 47months. Posterior mesh rectopexy had significantly lower odds of recurrence than did the Altemeier procedure (logOR, - 12.75; 95% credible intervals, - 40.91, - 1.75), Delorme procedure (- 13.10; - 41.26, - 2.09), resection rectopexy (- 11.98; - 41.36, - 0.19), sponge rectopexy (- 13.19; - 42.87, - 0.54), and sutured rectopexy (- 13.12; - 42.58, - 1.50), but similar odds to ventral mesh rectopexy (- 12.09; - 41.7, 0.03). Differences among the procedures in complications, operation time, and improvement in FI were not significant. Posterior mesh rectopexy ranked best with the lowest recurrence while perineal procedures ranked worst with the highest recurrence rates.

Comparative anatomy of the ovine and human pelvis for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: evaluating the effectiveness of the ovine model.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is a functional reconstructive surgery used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in middle-aged women. Although LSC is widely used, its implementation is hindered by perceived technical difficulties and surgical learning curves. Surgeons require adequate experience with LSC prior to performing the procedure on patients to improve their quality of life. This study is aimed at demonstrating the effectiveness of the ovine model (OM) for training and research in LSC, while also comparing anatomical differences between ovine and human models during the procedure. The animal model and training were provided by the Jesús Usón Minimally Invasive Surgery Centre. Urologists and gynecologists with experience in LSC participated in a course and their findings were recorded and documented. Differences in patient positioning, trocar placement, and reperitonealization were identified between the ovine and human models. Hysterectomy is always performed in the ovine model, whereas it is not mandatory in humans. There are also differences in the dissection of the levator ani muscle and attachment point of the posterior mesh to the uterus between the two models. Despite differences in some areas, the ovine pelvic structure and vagina are similar in size to those of humans. The ovine model is a valuable tool for surgeons in their learning curve for LSC, allowing for safe and effective practice prior to performing the procedure on patients. The use of the OM can help to improve the quality of life for women affected by pelvic organ prolapse.

Anatomic outcomes of sacrohysteropexy without posterior mesh placement in patients with asymptomatic grade 1 and 2 rectoceles: Is a rectouterine mesh really necessary?

To present the anatomic outcomes of sacrohysteropexy surgery without posterior mesh placement in patients with asymptomatic grade 1 and 2 rectoceles. The patients who underwent abdominal sacrohysteropexy without posterior mesh placement for the treatment of symptomatic grade 3 and 4 anterior/apical prolapse + asymptomatic grade 1 and 2 rectocele between May 2015 and January 2021 were evaluated retrospectively. The success rate, the anatomic outcomes (for anterior, apical, and posterior pelvic organ prolapse [POP]), and perioperative data of the surgical procedure were assessed. The objective failure criteria after surgery included the presence of grade 1 or higher in any compartment (anatomical criteria), recurrent POP requiring an operation, and/or usage of pessaries. Perioperative adverse events were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Fifty-one patients underwent sacrohysteropexy without posterior mesh. The mean age of the patients was 56.8 ± 10 years. The success rates (anatomical outcomes) for the anterior/apical and posterior POP in the study group were 60.7%, 54.9%, and 58.8%, respectively, at a median follow-up time of 40.24 (24-71) months. The median hospital stay was 3.1 (2-6) days. The mean estimated blood loss was 127.6 (80-150) mL. The mean operation time was 114 (90-156) min. The mean urethral and catheter removal times were 1.3 (1, 2) and 2.1 (2-4) days, respectively. The mean recovery time of gastrointestinal motility was 14.4 h (11-35). Sacrohysteropexy without posterior mesh placement might be associated with less pain, shorter operative time, and shorter recovery time of gastrointestinal motility, without compromising the anatomic success.

Posterior mesh inguinal hernia repairs: a propensity score matched analysis of laparoscopic and robotic versus open approaches

PurposeInternational guidelines suggest the use of lapro-endoscopic technique for primary unilateral inguinal hernia (IHR) because of lower postoperative pain and reduction in chronic pain. It is unclear if the primary benefit is due to the minimally invasive approach, the posterior mesh position or both. Further research evaluating posterior mesh placement using open preperitoneal techniques is recommended. A potential benefit of open preperitoneal repair is the avoidance of general anesthesia, as these repairs can be performed under local anesthesia. This study compares clinical and patient-reported outcomes after unilateral laparo-endoscopic, robotic, and open posterior mesh IHRs.MethodsWe performed a propensity score matched analysis of patients undergoing IHR between 2012 and 2021 in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry. 10,409 patients underwent a unilateral IHR via a posterior approach. Hernia repairs were performed via minimally invasive surgery (MIS) which includes laparoscopic and robotic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP), laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP), or open transrectus preperitoneal/open preperitoneal (TREPP/OPP) approaches. Propensity score matching (PSM) utilizing nearest neighbor matching accounted for differences in baseline characteristics and possible confounding variables between groups. We matched 816 patients in the MIS cohort with 816 patients in the TREPP/OPP group. Outcomes included patient reported quality of life, hernia recurrence, and postoperative opioid use.ResultsImprovement was seen after TREPP/OPP as compared to MIS IHR in EuraHS at 30 days (Median(IQR) 7.0 (2.0–16.64) vs 10 (2.0–24.0); OR 0.69 [0.55–0.85]; p = 0.001) and 6 months (1.0 (0.0–4.0) vs 2.0 (0.0–4.0); OR 0.63 [0.46–85]; p = 0.002), patient-reported opioid use at 30-day follow-up (18% vs 45% OR 0.26 [0.19–0.35]; p < 0.001), and rates of surgical site occurrences (0.8% vs 4.9% OR 0.16 [0.06–0.35]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in EuraHS scores and recurrences at 1 year.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates a potential benefit of open posterior mesh placement over MIS repair in short-term quality of life and seroma formation with equivalent rates of hernia recurrence. Further study is needed to better understand these differences and determine the reproducibility of these findings outside of high-volume specialty centers.

Impact of Laparoscopic Prolapse Repair in the Levator Hiatus Area

To determine whether laparoscopic surgery by sacrocolpopexy or sacrocervicopexy with posterior mesh attachment to levator ani to treat pelvic organ prolapse reduces the levator hiatus area, as measured by transperineal 3- and 4-dimensional ultrasound. The secondary objective was to assess the risk factors for prolapse recurrence. This is a prospective cohort study. A university tertiary hospital. Women with symptomatic apical prolapse at a high risk of recurrence were included. High risk of recurrence was defined as age <60 years and levator injury (avulsion and/or ballooning) or stage III-IV prolapse Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification. Women were treated with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrocervicopexy. Women underwent clinical examination according to assessment by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system and transperineal ultrasound for the levator hiatus area at Valsalva. We collected demographic, clinical, and ultrasound data before surgery from clinical records and performed a comparative analysis of the levator hiatus areas before and after surgery and univariate and multivariate analyses of the risk factors for recurrence. Among the 30 women who enrolled, the levator hiatus area at Valsalva decreased significantly after surgery by an average of 4.68 cm2 (p=.028). However, despite a recurrence rate of 13.3%, we found no risk factors associated with recurrence in either the univariate or the multivariate analyses. Laparoscopic surgery by sacrocolpopexy or sacrocervicopexy for pelvic organ prolapse with mesh posterior attachment to levator ani significantly reduces the levator hiatus area measured by transperineal ultrasound. Further large-scale studies will be needed to confirm our results and identify risk factors for recurrence.