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

Background: Umbilical and epigastric hernia repairs are frequently performed surgical procedures with an expected low complication rate. Nevertheless, the optimal method of repair with best short- and long-term outcomes remains debatable. The aim was to develop guidelines for the treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias. Methods: The guideline group consisted of surgeons from Europe and North America including members from the European Hernia Society and the Americas Hernia Society. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) critical appraisal checklists, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument were used. A systematic literature search was done on 1 May 2018, and updated on 1 February 2019. Results: Literature reporting specifically on umbilical and epigastric hernias was limited in quantity and quality, resulting in a majority of the recommendations being graded as weak, based on low-quality evidence. The main recommendation was to use mesh for repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias to reduce the recurrence rate. Most umbilical and epigastric hernias may be repaired by an open approach with a preperitoneal flat mesh. A laparoscopic approach may be considered if the hernia defect is large, or if the patient has an increased risk of wound morbidity. Conclusion: This is the first European and American guideline on the treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias. It is recommended that symptomatic umbilical and epigastric hernias are repaired by an open approach with a preperitoneal flat mesh.

https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bjs.11489

Guidelines for treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias from the European Hernia Society and Americas Hernia Society

With more than 20 million patients annually, inguinal hernia repair is one of the most often performed surgical procedures worldwide. The lifetime risk to develop an inguinal hernia is 27-43% for men and 3-6% for women. In spite of all advances, 11% of all patients suffer from a recurrence and 10-12% from chronic pain following primary inguinal hernia repair. By developing evidence-based guidelines and recommendations, the international hernia societies aim to improve the outcome of inguinal hernia repair due to standardization of care. From a total of more than 100 different repair techniques for inguinal and femoral hernias, classified as tissue repair, open mesh repair, and laparo-endoscopic mesh repair, the new International Guidelines of the Hernia-Surge Group only recommend the totally extraperitoneal patch plasty (TEP), transabdominal preperitoneal patch plasty (TAPP), and Lichtenstein techniques. Since a generally accepted technique suitable for all inguinal hernias does not exist, surgeons should provide both an anterior open (Lichtenstein) and a posterior laparo-endoscopic (TEP or TAPP) approach option. The guidelines strongly recommend that surgeons tailor the treatment of inguinal hernias based on expertise, local/national resources, and patient- and hernia-related factors. A tailored approach in inguinal hernia repair should pay heed to the patient- and hernia-related factors, unilateral hernia in men and women, bilateral hernia, recurrent hernia, scrotal hernia, previous pelvic and lower abdominal surgery, severe cardiac or pulmonary comorbidities, and incarcerated hernia.

/pdf/current-concepts-of-inguinal-hernia-repair-3ywonu69t6.pdf

Current Concepts of Inguinal Hernia Repair.

One standard repair technique for groin hernias does not exist. The objective of this study is to perform an update meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to investigate if there is a difference in terms of recurrence between laparoscopic and open primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia repair. The reporting methodology conforms to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Randomised controlled trials only were included. The intervention was laparoscopic mesh repair (transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP)). The control group was Lichtenstein repair. The primary outcome was recurrence rate and secondary outcomes were acute and chronic post-operative pain, morbidity and quality of life. This study included 12 randomised controlled trials with 3966 patients randomised to Lichtenstein repair (n = 1926) or laparoscopic repair (n = 2040). There were no significant differences in recurrence rates between the laparoscopic and open groups (odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% CI 0.51–2.55, p = 0.76). Laparoscopic repair was associated with reduced rate of acute pain compared to open repair (mean difference 1.19, CI − 1.86, − 0.51, p ≤ 0.0006) and reduced odds of chronic pain compared to open (OR 0.41, CI 0.30–0.56, p ≤ 0.00001). The included trials were, however, of variable methodological quality. Trial sequential analysis reported that further studies are unlikely to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two techniques. This meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis report no difference in recurrence rates between laparoscopic and open primary unilateral inguinal hernia repairs. Rates of acute and chronic pain are significantly less in the laparoscopic group.

Open versus laparoscopic mesh repair of primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Importance Despite rapid adoption of the robotic platform for inguinal hernia repair in the US, to date, no level I trials have ever compared robotic inguinal hernia repair to laparoscopic repair. This multicenter randomized clinical trial is the first to compare the robotic platform to laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair. Objective To determine whether the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair results in improved postoperative outcomes compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter, single-blinded, prospective randomized clinical pilot study was conducted from April 2016 to April 2019, with a follow-up duration of 30 days in 6 academic and academic-affiliated sites. Enrolled in this study were 113 patients with a unilateral primary or recurrent inguinal hernia. After exclusions 102 remained for analysis. Interventions Standard laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair or robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair. Main Outcomes and Measures Main outcomes included postoperative pain, health-related quality of life, mobility, wound morbidity, and cosmesis. Secondary outcomes included cost, surgeon ergonomics, and surgeon mental workload. A primary outcome was not selected because this study was designed as a pilot study. The hypothesis was formulated prior to data collection. Results A total of 102 patients were included in the study (54 in the laparoscopic group, mean [SD] age, 57.2 [13.3] years and 48 [88.9%] male; 48 in the robotic group, mean [SD] age, 56.1 [14.1] years and 44 [91.6%] male). There were no differences at the preoperative, 1-week, or 30-day points between the groups in terms of wound events, readmissions, pain as measured by the Visual Analog Scale, or quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Compared with traditional laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, robotic transabdominal preperitoneal repair was associated with longer median (interquartile range) operative times (75.5 [59.0-93.8] minutes vs 40.5 [29.2-63.8] minutes, respectively;P  Conclusions and Relevance Results of this study showed no clinical benefit to the robotic approach to straightforward inguinal hernia repair compared with the laparoscopic approach. The robotic approach incurred higher costs and more operative time compared with the laparoscopic approach, with added surgeon frustration and no ergonomic benefit to surgeons. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02816658

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/articlepdf/2763027/jamasurgery_prabhu_2020_oi_200003.pdf

Robotic Inguinal vs Transabdominal Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repair: The RIVAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

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

N. Schouten

Papers

International guidelines for groin hernia management