Worldwide, more than 20 million patients undergo groin hernia repair annually. The many different approaches, treatment indications and a significant array of techniques for groin hernia repair warrant guidelines to standardize care, minimize complications, and improve results. The main goal of these guidelines is to improve patient outcomes, specifically to decrease recurrence rates and reduce chronic pain, the most frequent problems following groin hernia repair. They have been endorsed by all five continental hernia societies, the International Endo Hernia Society and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. 
An expert group of international surgeons (the HerniaSurge Group) and one anesthesiologist pain expert was formed. The group consisted of members from all continents with specific experience in hernia-related research. Care was taken to include surgeons who perform different types of repair and had preferably performed research on groin hernia surgery. During the Group's first meeting, evidence-based medicine (EBM) training occurred and 166 key questions (KQ) were formulated. EBM rules were followed in complete literature searches (including a complete search by The Dutch Cochrane database) to January 1, 2015 and to July 1, 2015 for level 1 publications. The articles were scored by teams of two or three according to Oxford, SIGN and Grade methodologies. During five 2-day meetings, results were discussed with the working group members leading to 136 statements and 88 recommendations. Recommendations were graded as "strong" (recommendations) or "weak" (suggestions) and by consensus in some cases upgraded. In the Results and summary section below, the term "should" refers to a recommendation. The AGREE II instrument was used to validate the guidelines. An external review was performed by three international experts. They recommended the guidelines with high scores. 
The risk factors for inguinal hernia (IH) include: family history, previous contra-lateral hernia, male gender, age, abnormal collagen metabolism, prostatectomy, and low body mass index. Peri-operative risk factors for recurrence include poor surgical techniques, low surgical volumes, surgical inexperience and local anesthesia. These should be considered when treating IH patients. IH diagnosis can be confirmed by physical examination alone in the vast majority of patients with appropriate signs and symptoms. Rarely, ultrasound is necessary. Less commonly still, a dynamic MRI or CT scan or herniography may be needed. The EHS classification system is suggested to stratify IH patients for tailored treatment, research and audit. Symptomatic groin hernias should be treated surgically. Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic male IH patients may be managed with "watchful waiting" since their risk of hernia-related emergencies is low. The majority of these individuals will eventually require surgery; therefore, surgical risks and the watchful waiting strategy should be discussed with patients. Surgical treatment should be tailored to the surgeon's expertise, patient- and hernia-related characteristics and local/national resources. Furthermore, patient health-related, life style and social factors should all influence the shared decision-making process leading up to hernia management. Mesh repair is recommended as first choice, either by an open procedure or a laparo-endoscopic repair technique. One standard repair technique for all groin hernias does not exist. It is recommended that surgeons/surgical services provide both anterior and posterior approach options. Lichtenstein and laparo-endoscopic repair are best evaluated. Many other techniques need further evaluation. Provided that resources and expertise are available, laparo-endoscopic techniques have faster recovery times, lower chronic pain risk and are cost effective. There is discussion concerning laparo-endoscopic management of potential bilateral hernias (occult hernia issue). After patient consent, during TAPP, the contra-lateral side should be inspected. This is not suggested during unilateral TEP repair. After appropriate discussions with patients concerning results tissue repair (first choice is the Shouldice technique) can be offered. Day surgery is recommended for the majority of groin hernia repair provided aftercare is organized. Surgeons should be aware of the intrinsic characteristics of the meshes they use. Use of so-called low-weight mesh may have slight short-term benefits like reduced postoperative pain and shorter convalescence, but are not associated with better longer-term outcomes like recurrence and chronic pain. Mesh selection on weight alone is not recommended. The incidence of erosion seems higher with plug versus flat mesh. It is suggested not to use plug repair techniques. The use of other implants to replace the standard flat mesh in the Lichtenstein technique is currently not recommended. In almost all cases, mesh fixation in TEP is unnecessary. In both TEP and TAPP it is recommended to fix mesh in M3 hernias (large medial) to reduce recurrence risk. Antibiotic prophylaxis in average-risk patients in low-risk environments is not recommended in open surgery. In laparo-endoscopic repair it is never recommended. Local anesthesia in open repair has many advantages, and its use is recommended provided the surgeon is experienced in this technique. 
General anesthesia is suggested over regional in patients aged 65 and older as it might be associated with fewer complications like myocardial infarction, pneumonia and thromboembolism. Perioperative field blocks and/or subfascial/subcutaneous infiltrations are recommended in all cases of open repair. Patients are recommended to resume normal activities without restrictions as soon as they feel comfortable. Provided expertise is available, it is suggested that women with groin hernias undergo laparo-endoscopic repair in order to decrease the risk of chronic pain and avoid missing a femoral hernia. Watchful waiting is suggested in pregnant women as groin swelling most often consists of self-limited round ligament varicosities. Timely mesh repair by a laparo-endoscopic approach is suggested for femoral hernias provided expertise is available. All complications of groin hernia management are discussed in an extensive chapter on the topic. Overall, the incidence of clinically significant chronic pain is in the 10-12% range, decreasing over time. Debilitating chronic pain affecting normal daily activities or work ranges from 0.5 to 6%. Chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) is defined as bothersome moderate pain impacting daily activities lasting at least 3 months postoperatively and decreasing over time. CPIP risk factors include: young age, female gender, high preoperative pain, early high postoperative pain, recurrent hernia and open repair. For CPIP the focus should be on nerve recognition in open surgery and, in selected cases, prophylactic pragmatic nerve resection (planned resection is not suggested). It is suggested that CPIP management be performed by multi-disciplinary teams. It is also suggested that CPIP be managed by a combination of pharmacological and interventional measures and, if this is unsuccessful, followed by, in selected cases (triple) neurectomy and (in selected cases) mesh removal. For recurrent hernia after anterior repair, posterior repair is recommended. If recurrence occurs after a posterior repair, an anterior repair is recommended. After a failed anterior and posterior approach, management by a specialist hernia surgeon is recommended. Risk factors for hernia incarceration/strangulation include: female gender, femoral hernia and a history of hospitalization related to groin hernia. It is suggested that treatment of emergencies be tailored according to patient- and hernia-related factors, local expertise and resources. Learning curves vary between different techniques. Probably about 100 supervised laparo-endoscopic repairs are needed to achieve the same results as open mesh surgery like Lichtenstein. It is suggested that case load per surgeon is more important than center volume. It is recommended that minimum requirements be developed to certify individuals as expert hernia surgeon. The same is true for the designation "Hernia Center". From a cost-effectiveness perspective, day-case laparoscopic IH repair with minimal use of disposables is recommended. The development and implementation of national groin hernia registries in every country (or region, in the case of small country populations) is suggested. They should include patient follow-up data and account for local healthcare structures. A dissemination and implementation plan of the guidelines will be developed by global (HerniaSurge), regional (international societies) and local (national chapters) initiatives through internet websites, social media and smartphone apps. 
An overarching plan to improve access to safe IH surgery in low-resource settings (LRSs) is needed. It is suggested that this plan contains simple guidelines and a sustainability strategy, independent of international aid. It is suggested that in LRSs the focus be on performing high-volume Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia using low-cost mesh. Three chapters discuss future research, guidelines for general practitioners and guidelines for patients. 
The HerniaSurge Group has developed these extensive and inclusive guidelines for the management of adult groin hernia patients. It is hoped that they will lead to better outcomes for groin hernia patients wherever they live. More knowledge, better training, national audit and specialization in groin hernia management will standardize care for these patients, lead to more effective and efficient healthcare and provide direction for future research.

/pdf/international-guidelines-for-groin-hernia-management-3otlldvdxc.pdf

International guidelines for groin hernia management

Importance Prosthetic mesh is frequently used to reinforce the repair of abdominal wall incisional hernias. The benefits of mesh for reducing the risk of hernia recurrence or the long-term risks of mesh-related complications are not known. Objective To investigate the risks of long-term recurrence and mesh-related complications following elective abdominal wall hernia repair in a population with complete follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants Registry-based nationwide cohort study including all elective incisional hernia repairs in Denmark from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2010. A total of 3242 patients with incisional repair were included. Follow-up until November 1, 2014, was obtained by merging data with prospective registrations from the Danish National Patient Registry supplemented with a retrospective manual review of patient records. A 100% follow-up rate was obtained. Exposures Hernia repair using mesh performed by either open or laparoscopic techniques vs open repair without use of mesh. Main Outcomes and Measures Five-year risk of reoperation for recurrence and 5-year risk of all mesh-related complications requiring subsequent surgery. Results Among the 3242 patients (mean age, 58.5 [SD, 13.5] years; 1720 women [53.1%]), 1119 underwent open mesh repair (34.5%), 366 had open nonmesh repair (11.3%), and 1757 had laparoscopic mesh repair (54.2%). The median follow-up after open mesh repair was 59 (interquartile range [IQR], 44-80) months, after nonmesh open repair was 62 (IQR, 44-79) months, and after laparoscopic mesh repair was 61 (IQR, 48-78) months. The risk of the need for repair for recurrent hernia following these initial hernia operations was lower for patients with open mesh repair (12.3% [95% CI, 10.4%-14.3%]; risk difference, −4.8% [95% CI, –9.1% to –0.5%]) and for patients with laparoscopic mesh repair (10.6% [95% CI, 9.2%-12.1%]; risk difference, –6.5% [95% CI, –10.6% to –2.4%]) compared with nonmesh repair (17.1% [95% CI, 13.2%-20.9%]). For the entirety of the follow-up duration, there was a progressively increasing number of mesh-related complications for both open and laparoscopic procedures. At 5 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of mesh-related complications was 5.6% (95% CI, 4.2%-6.9%) for patients who underwent open mesh hernia repair and 3.7% (95% CI, 2.8%-4.6%) for patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh repair. The long-term repair-related complication rate for patients with an initial nonmesh repair was 0.8% (open nonmesh repair vs open mesh repair: risk difference, 5.3% [95% CI, 4.4%-6.2%]; open nonmesh repair vs laparoscopic mesh repair: risk difference, 3.4% [95% CI, 2.7%-4.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients undergoing incisional repair, sutured repair was associated with a higher risk of reoperation for recurrence over 5 years compared with open mesh and laparoscopic mesh repair. With long-term follow-up, the benefits attributable to mesh are offset in part by mesh-related complications.

/pdf/long-term-recurrence-and-complications-associated-with-1utsimim8t.pdf

Long-term Recurrence and Complications Associated With Elective Incisional Hernia Repair.

Background
Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair (LIVHR) is being used increasingly, with reported outcomes equivalent to those of open hernia repair. Closure of the fascial defect (CFD) is a technique that may reduce seroma formation and bulging after LIVHR. Non-closure of the fascial defect makes the repair of larger defects easier and reduces postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether CFD affects the rate of adverse outcomes, such as recurrence, pseudo-recurrence, mesh eventration or bulging, and the rate of seroma formation.

Methods
A systematic search was performed of PubMed, Ovid, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Scopus to identify RCTs that analysed CFD with regard to rates of adverse outcomes. A meta-analysis was done using fixed-effect methods. The primary outcome of interest was adverse events. Secondary outcomes were seroma, postoperative pain, mean hospital stay, mean duration of operation and surgical techniques employed.

Results
A total of 16 studies were identified involving 3638 patients, 2963 in the CFD group and 675 in the non-closure of facial defect group. Significantly fewer adverse events were noted following CFD than non-closure (4·9 per cent (79 of 1613) versus 22·3 per cent (114 of 511)), with a combined risk ratio (RR) of 0·25 (95 per cent c.i. 0·18 to 0·33; P < 0·001). CFD resulted in a significantly lower rate of seroma (2·5 per cent (39 of 1546) versus 12·2 per cent (47 of 385)), with a combined RR of 0·37 (0·23 to 0·57; P < 0·001), and shorter duration of hospital stay. No significant difference was noted in postoperative pain.

Conclusion
CFD during LIVHR reduces the rate of seroma formation and adverse hernia-site events.

Meta-analysis of closure of the fascial defect during laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair.

The goals of ventral hernia repair are relief of patient symptoms and/or cure of the hernia with minimization of recurrence rates. While laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) has gained popularity in recent years, there is still significant controversy about the optimal approach to ventral hernia repair. This document has been written to assist surgeons utilizing a laparoscopic approach to ventral hernia repair in terms of patient selection, operative technique, and postoperative care. It is not intended to debate the merits of prosthetic use and specific types of prosthetics.

SAGES guidelines for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations. A European working group, “BioMesh Study Group”, composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used. The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes. The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.

/pdf/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-use-of-biologic-or-biosynthetic-22rx6p01q3.pdf

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction

Guidelines are increasingly determining the decision process in day-to-day clinical work. Guidelines describe the current best possible standard in diagnostics and therapy. They should be developed by an international panel of experts, whereby alongside individual experience, above all, the results of comparative studies are decisive. According to the results of high-ranking scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, statements and recommendations are formulated, and these are graded strictly according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines can therefore be valuable in helping particularly the young surgeon in his or her day-to-day work to find the best decision for the patient when confronted with a wide and confusing range of options. However, even experienced surgeons benefit because by virtue of a heavy workload and commitment, they often find it difficult to keep up with the ever-increasing published literature. All guidelines require regular updating, usually every 3 years, in line with progress in the field. The current Guidelines focus on technique and perioperative management of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and constitute the first comprehensive guidelines on this topic. In this issue of Surgical Endoscopy, the first part of the Guidelines is published including sections on basics, indication for surgery, perioperative management, and key points of technique. The next part (Part 2) of the Guidelines will address complications and comparisons between open and laparoscopic techniques. Part 3 will cover mesh technology, hernia prophylaxis, technique-related issues, new technologic developments, lumbar and other unusual hernias, and training/education.

/pdf/guidelines-for-laparoscopic-treatment-of-ventral-and-4iywt9vvsy.pdf

Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)—Part 1

Background:

Polyvinylidene fluoride-coated polypropylene meshes have been developed specifically for intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair. They combine a macroporous design with biomechanical characteristics compatible with the abdominal wall and are reported to have favourable antiadhesive properties. This retrospective study reports complications related to one of these materials, DynaMesh®.



Methods:

Twenty-nine patients underwent intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair with DynaMesh® at one of two hospitals. Patients characteristics, surgical procedures and postoperative analgesia were comparable at both sites.



Results:

Six patients developed DynaMesh®-related complications that required surgical reintervention by laparotomy within 1 year of operation. Surgical reintervention was for adhesions in five patients and the mesh had to be explanted in three. One mesh was explanted because of early infection. Adhesions to DynaMesh® were found in two patients who had surgery for unrelated reasons.



Conclusion:

Laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay DynaMesh® repair was associated with a high rate of complications. Copyright © 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

M. Rohr

Papers

Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)—Part 1

Adverse effects of polyvinylidene fluoride-coated polypropylene mesh used for laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay repair of incisional hernia.