BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic IPOM is technically challenging, especially regarding fascial closure. Hybrid repair has been proposed as a simpler approach. We aimed to compare hybrid and laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM) in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair (VHR).
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Cochrane, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases to identify studies comparing hybrid versus laparoscopic IPOM VHR reporting the outcomes of recurrence, mortality, seroma, postoperative complications, reoperation, surgical site infection, and operative time. Statistical analysis was performed using RStudio 4.1.2 using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: We screened 2,896 articles and fully reviewed 22 of them. A total of five studies, encompassing 664 patients were included. Among them, 337 (50.8%) underwent laparoscopic IPOM. All patients had incisional hernias, with a mean diameter varying from 3 to 12.7 cm, 60% were women, with a mean BMI varying from 29.5 to 38. The hybrid approach had a lower rate of seroma when compared to the laparoscopic (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.92; p = 0.038; I²=78%). We found no difference in recurrence, mortality, postoperative complications, reoperation, surgical site infection, and operative time between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid IPOM is a safe and effective method for incisional hernia repair. Moreover, it facilitates fascial defect closure and decreases postoperative seromas.

BACKGROUND: We present single-institution results of types I and II hybrid procedures for aortic arch disease with 30-day and long-term results and review of the literature.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all patients that underwent zone 0 endografting and open bypass from ascending aorta to the arch vessels at our institution between January 2013 and 2020. The following data for the systematic review were extracted from eligible studies: 30-day/in-hospital mortality, stroke rate, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) rate, renal failure requiring dialysis, development of retrograde dissection, early (<30 days) types I and III endoleak, follow-up length, late (>30 days) endoleak, and late (>30 days) mortality.
RESULTS: Twelve patients underwent hybrid aortic arch treatment in our institution. The most common aortic arch pathology was degenerative aortic aneurysm. The rate of retrograde dissection and SCI was 8.33%. Regarding the literature data, a total of 768 patients undergoing types I and II hybrid aortic arch debranching procedure. The pooled rate of 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 10.96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.21-14.06), SCI pooled rate was 2.91% (95% CI, 1.76%-4.33%), and retrograde dissection pooled rate was 3.22% (95% CI, 1.99-4.72).
CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid arch techniques provide safe alternative to open repair with acceptable short- and midterm results.

Traditional therapeutic options for complex thoracoabdominal aneurysm include open repair, hybrid repair or endovascular repair (involving fenestrated or branched endografts). The Streamliner Multilayer Flow Modulator has been available for treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysms since 2010. Its design permits blood flow to perfuse through the mesh in a modus that preserves collateral branch patency, while modulating turbulent to laminar flow within the device. The flow then stagnates over time within the surrounding aneurysm sac. Significant complications, including paraplegia, renal failure and cerebrovascular accident, are much lower with Streamliner Multilayer Flow Modulator treatment. Application of the Streamliner Multilayer Flow Modulator to complex aortic pathologies presents a novel solution to an, as of yet, unmet clinical need, and has resulted in promising clinical outcomes when compared to existing solutions. The Streamliner Multilayer Flow Modulator offers potential for treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic pathologies in patients and is not just confined to those with complexity that dictates no other management options. While current literature illustrates that there is a decreased risk of mortality and associated complications when this new disruptive technology is utilised, there is still a need for prospective, long-term clinical trials, as well as comparative trials to accurately assess outcomes of Streamliner Multilayer Flow Modulator treatment that are both precise and reproducible. This article is a review of current clinical literature regarding contemporary flow modulating technology compared with open, branched and fenestrated managements, presenting early outcomes.