BACKGROUND: Fascial breakdown with the occurrence of an incisional hernia (IH) is an important and challenging complication of any laparotomy. For a long time, the success of the abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) was measured only from the surgeon\'s perspective by defining outcome measures such as wound morbidity and recurrence. The understanding that complete recovery is difficult to assess without considering patients has shifted the paradigm of optimal outcomes to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) and Quality of Life (QoL), which are pivotal to evaluate the success and efficacy of AWR.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective follow-up study of 91 patients undergoing mesh-augmented abdominal wall reconstruction for primary or recurrent incisional hernia between January 2021 and December 2023. Demographic data, comorbidities, and hernia characteristics were recorded. All patients were evaluated preoperatively by a native abdomino-pelvic CT scan to assess the characteristics of hernia (length, width, surface, and volume of the incisional hernia sac and of peritoneal cavity), the presence of mesh (if previously inserted), and abdominal wall muscles status. All intervention were performed by the same surgical team according to the techniques described by Rives - Stoppa (RS), Ramirez (ACS), and Novitsky (PCS). Abdominal wall function was assessed using trunk raising (TR) and double leg lowering (DLL) measurements performed preoperatively, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. At the same time, pre- and post-operative quality of life was analysed using the EQ-5D score.
RESULTS: Mean age of 59.42 ± 12.28 years and a male/female ratio of 35/56 were recorded, most of them being obese. There were 36 (42%) patients with defects larger than 10 cm. The distribution of the type of surgical intervention was: RS 35 patients, ACS 13 patients, and PCS 43 patients. The mean value of combined score for the preoperative abdominal wall functionality was 4.41 ± 1.67 (2-8) while the mean value of preoperative EQ-5D index was 0.652 ± 0.026 (-0.32-1.00). QoL was poor and very poor for 48% (44) of the patients who recorded index values less than 0.56 (50% percentile). Preoperative EQ-5D index was highly correlated with Combined AWF score (r = 0.620; p < 0.0001) and the correlation was specific (AUC = 0.799; p < 0.0001; asymptotic 95%CI = 0.711-0.923). At 12 months, the AWF score increased to 8.13 ± 2.58 (1-10) and the QoL total score to 0.979 ± 0.007 (0.71-1). Good and very good total scores for QoL were recorded for 47 patients (84%) compared to 33 (36%) in the preoperative evaluation (χ2 with Yates continuity correction for two degrees of liberty = 46.04; p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that patients can expect to see a significant overall improvement in all five components of QoL measured with the help of Eq. 5D questionnaire. This improvement is dependent by hernia size, and some individual patient\'s factors (diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and age over 60 years).

There is a clinical need to better understand and improve post-operative pain for patients undergoing laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia. The aim of this single-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was to compare post-operative pain between absorbable and non-absorbable tack fixation in patients undergoing IPOM + repair. Patients with primary incisional hernia (size 3-10 cm), were randomised to either Reliatack™ (n = 27), an articulating-arm device deploying absorbable polymer tacks, or Protack™ (n = 36), a straight-arm device deploying permanent titanium tacks. The primary outcome was reported pain on activity using a visual analogue scale at post-operative day 30. Clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed pre-operatively (day 0), and at 1-, 6-, 30- and 365-days post-surgery. No significant differences in reported pain \'on activity\' were found at any timepoint. Less reported pain \'at rest\' was found on post-operative day-1 with absorbable tacks (p = 0.020). Significantly longer mesh-fixation time (p < 0.001) and the use of more knots for fascial closure (p = 0.006) and tacks for mesh-fixation (p = 0.001) were found for the absorbable tack group. There were no differences in other clinical and PROMs between groups. For the whole trial cohort (n = 63) several domains in the Short-Form-36 showed a reduction from baseline scores at day 30 that improved at day 365. At post-operative day 30, 75.0% of patients reported \'a lot of pain\' since discharge. This study found no difference in reported pain when choosing absorbable or non-absorbable tack fixation. The utility of \"early\" post-operative pain assessment as a comparator following incisional hernia repair needs clarification.

BACKGROUND: The original ROCSS trial demonstrated a significant reduction in clinically detectable incisional hernias at 2 years in patients receiving prophylactic biological mesh during stoma closure. ROCSS-Ex was designed to investigate the 5-8-year cost-effectiveness of mesh in the surviving cohort using an abdominal wall-specific quality of life score.
METHODS: Eligible participants from original UK centres were identified. The primary outcome (abdominal wall-specific quality of life) was measured using the HerQLes score and EQ-5D-5L. Assessors remained blind to patients\' original allocation, even if the patient was aware of their treatment.
RESULTS: Of the original 790 patients, 598 were available for long-term follow-up. HerQLes scores were available for 396 patients (no mesh: 191, mesh: 205). There was no difference in primary outcome between the two groups (mean difference of 1.48, 95% c.i. (-2.35, 5.32), P = 0.45) and no cost benefit of routine insertion of prophylactic biological mesh across the entire cohort in the long term. However, patients who received mesh experienced significantly fewer stoma site complications within the first 3 years after reversal and needed fewer surgical reinterventions (32 versus 54 for the no mesh group; incidence rate ratio of 0.55, 95% c.i. (0.31, 0.97), P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: ROCSS-Ex has shown equivocal outcomes for prophylactic mesh insertion versus standard repair on abdominal wall-specific quality of life 5-8 years after surgery. As most reinterventions occurred within the first 3 years post-surgery, there may be a role for prophylactic mesh in a subset of patients who would be most adversely affected by repeated surgery early on.
BACKGROUND: ISRCTN25584182 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

UNASSIGNED: Incisional hernias are a frequent complication following robotic radical prostatectomy. Observational data in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy suggest that transverse closure resulted in lower hernia rates than vertical closure. We sought to compare the incidence of incisional hernia after robotic radical prostatectomy after vertical and transverse extraction site closure.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a clinically integrated, crossover, cluster randomized trial at a single tertiary referral center (January 2016-September 2021) comparing the rate of hernia after transverse vs vertical extraction site excision in 1356 patients treated with minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. The primary outcome was between-group incidence of incisional hernia within 15 months of prostatectomy defined by physical examination and self-reported patient surveys.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, 197 (20%) patients developed an incisional hernia within 15 months, 797 did not have an incisional hernia within this period, and 362 had missing outcome data regarding incisional hernia. We found no significant difference in hernia rates between the 2 incision types (absolute between-group difference 1.8%; 95% CI -3.4%, 6.6%; P = .5) in the primary analysis or in the 3 sensitivity analyses. Notably, because of the inclusive definition of hernia used, these data cannot be used as an estimate of the true prevalence of incisional hernia.
UNASSIGNED: Surgeons should choose the incision and closure approach they are most comfortable with when extracting specimens. Studies of modifications to the surgical technique are best conducted as randomized comparisons, and the clinically integrated, crossover, cluster randomized trial allows large trials to be completed at a single center and at low cost.
UNASSIGNED: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01407263.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is frequently observed after open colorectal cancer surgery, and should be considered a serious short- and long-term health issue. The present study evaluated the efficacy of small-bite abdominal closure in reducing the incidence of incisional hernia in this patient group.
METHODS: An RCT was conducted between June 2019 and June 2022. A total of 173 patients who underwent open colorectal cancer surgery were assigned randomly to one of two groups to undergo fascial closure with either small bites (87) or conventional bites (86). The incisional hernia rate was accepted as the primary outcome, and surgical-site infection as the secondary outcome.
RESULTS: The incisional hernia rates at 1 year were 7 and 27% in the small- and conventional-bite groups respectively (P < 0.001). This rate increased to 9 and 31% at the end of the second year (P < 0.001). Surgical-site infections occurred in 18% of the small-bite group and 31% of the conventional-bite group (P = 0.03). Compared with the conventional-bite group, the small-bite group had higher suture/wound length ratios (mean(s.d.) 5.18(0.84) versus 3.67(0.57); P < 0.001) and a longer fascial closure time 14.1(4.64) versus 12.9(2.39) min; P = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Small-bite closure with 5-mm tissue bites placed 5 mm apart reduced the incidence of incisional hernia and surgical-site infection after open colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perineal hernia (PH) is a late complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) that may compromise a patient\'s quality of life. The frequency and risk factors for PH after robotic APR adopting recent rectal cancer treatment strategies remain unclear.
METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic APR for rectal cancer between December 2011 and June 2022 were retrospectively examined. From July 2020, pelvic reinforcement procedures, such as robotic closure of the pelvic peritoneum and levator ani muscles, were performed as prophylactic procedures for PH whenever feasible. PH was diagnosed in patients with or without symptoms using computed tomography 1 year after surgery. We examined the frequency of PH, compared characteristics between patients with PH (PH+) and without PH (PH-), and identified risk factors for PH.
RESULTS: We evaluated 142 patients, including 53 PH+ (37.3%) and 89 PH- (62.6%). PH+ had a significantly higher rate of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (26.4% versus 10.1%, p = 0.017) and a significantly lower rate of undergoing pelvic reinforcement procedures (1.9% versus 14.0%, p = 0.017). PH+ had a lower rate of lateral lymph node dissection (47.2% versus 61.8%, p = 0.115) and a shorter operative time (340 min versus 394 min, p = 0.110). According to multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for PH were preoperative chemoradiotherapy, not undergoing lateral lymph node dissection, and not undergoing a pelvic reinforcement procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: PH after robotic APR for rectal cancer is not a rare complication under the recent treatment strategies for rectal cancer, and performing prophylactic procedures for PH should be considered.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted ventral hernia repair is associated with decreased length of stay and lower complication rates compared with open repair, but acquisition and maintenance of the robotic system is costly. The aim of this was study was to compare the procedure-specific cost of robot-assisted and open ventral and incisional hernia repair including cost of procedure-related readmissions and reoperations within 90 days postoperatively.
METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort study of 100 patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral hernia. Patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 with 100 patients undergoing open repairs on age, type of hernia (primary/incisional), and horizontal defect size. The primary outcome of the study was the total cost per procedure in Euros including the cost of a robotic approach, extra ports, mesh, tackers, length of stay, length of readmission, and operative reintervention. The cost of the robot itself was not included in the cost calculation.
RESULTS: The mean length of stay was 0.3 days for patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral hernia repair, which was significantly shorter compared with 2.1 days for patients undergoing open repair, P < 0.005. The readmission rate was 4% for patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral hernia repairs and was significantly lower compared with open repairs (17%), P = 0.006. The mean total cost of all robot-assisted ventral and incisional hernia repairs was 1,094 euro compared with 1,483 euro for open repairs, P = 0.123. The total cost of a robot-assisted incisional hernia repair was significantly lower (1,134 euros) compared with open ventral hernia repair (2,169 euros), P = 0.005.
CONCLUSIONS: In a Danish cohort of patients with incisional hernia, robot-assisted incisional hernia repair was more cost-effective than an open repair due to shortened length of stay, and lower rates of readmission and reintervention within 90 days.

BACKGROUND: This study examines the efficacy of prophylactic mesh implantation during open radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion in preventing parastomal hernias (PH). Despite PH being a common complication, prophylactic methods have been underexplored.
METHODS: A pilot, single-center, prospective cohort study was conducted involving five patients undergoing surgery with mesh implantation. Demographic and clinical characteristics were monitored, including the incidence of PH, operation time, blood loss, and hospitalization duration.
RESULTS: During the mean follow-up period of 9.1±3.2 months post-operation, no occurrences of PH were observed in the patient group. Despite the risks associated with implanting foreign material in an area of surgery involving open small intestine, no infectious complications were noted.
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic mesh implantation in radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion appears to be an effective preventive measure against PH. Further extensive studies are required to definitively confirm the efficacy and safety of mesh use in this context.

BACKGROUND: For abdominal fascial closure, the choice of optimal suture material and appropriate suture technique are of paramount importance to prevent the incidence of incisional hernia. Although barbed sutures are widely used in various surgical fields, their safety and feasibility on abdominal fascial closure which requires the most tensile strength for security have not been established yet.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-arm, interventional clinical trial to present the postoperative outcomes of using barbed sutures in abdominal fascial closure between April 2021 and August 2021. Patients with colorectal cancer who underwent minimally invasive surgery in elective setting were included. For all participants, monofilament polydioxanone barbed suture, MONOFIX®, was used to secure the abdominal fasica. The primary outcome was the 1-year incidence of incisional hernia assessed by computed tomography.
RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were included. The median fascial incision length and suture length were 6.5 cm (range, 6-7.5 cm) and 31 cm (range, 27.5-39.0 cm), respectively. The median procedure time of abdominal fascial closure was 4 min (range, 3-9 min). There was no incidence of unexpected event related to suturing including suture cutting, stopper separation from threads, and suture loosening. One case of superficial surgical site infection occurred during postoperative hospital stays. There was no fascial dehiscence, incisional hernia, and adhesive ileus during a median follow-up period of 17.5 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Monofilament polydioxanone barbed suture, MONOFIX®, may be used safely and effectively on abdominal fascial closure.
RESULTS:
UNASSIGNED: NCT05872334.

UNASSIGNED: Incisional hernia (IH) after abdominal surgery is a frequent surgical complication. Risk factors associated with IH are midline incisions, patients with an abdominal aneurysm of the aorta, and high BMI. Preventive measures include the use of the small-bites suture technique and/or placing a prophylactic mesh for reinforcement of the midline closure. Although recommended for high-risk patients, many surgeons are still reluctant to place a prophylactic mesh due to related complications. To counter these concerns, new synthetic resorbable meshes are being developed, such as the Deternia Self-Gripping Resorbable Mesh (\"investigational device\"). However, the effectiveness of this mesh in IH prevention has not been proved.
UNASSIGNED: The Mesh Augmented Reinforcement of Abdominal Wall Suture Line (MARS) study is a European, multicentre, prospective, single-arm study. A total of 120 patients scheduled for elective midline laparotomy, and for that reason at risk of developing IH, will be recruited in ~12 sites after informed consent. The sample size was estimated based on greater than 80% power, two-sided alpha of 0.05, an expected 12 month IH rate of 8% and a predefined performance goal of 18% (10% clinical margin). Midline incisions will be closed by the small bites closure technique with a minimum 4:1 suture-to-wound length ratio and reinforced by mesh placement in the retrorectus position. The primary outcome will be IH occurrence at 12-month postoperatively, evaluated both clinically and by ultrasound. Secondary outcomes will include mesh-related and postoperative complications, surgical characteristics, IH incidence at 2 and 3 years after surgery, and quality of life.
UNASSIGNED: Currently, no conclusive evidence is available for synthetic resorbable meshes in a prophylactic setting to prevent IH. The MARS study will be the first prospective cohort study to investigate resorbable synthetic meshes and small bites closure to reduce IH incidence.