BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is one of the most common general surgery procedures among older adults but is often deferred due to a higher risk of complications. This study compares postoperative quality of life (QOL) and complications between frail and non-frail patients undergoing elective VHR. We hypothesized that frail patients would have higher complication rates and smaller gains in quality of life compared to non-frail patients.
METHODS: Patients 65 years of age and older, undergoing elective VHR between 2018 and 2022 were selected from the ACHQC (Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative) and grouped based on frailty scores obtained using the Modified Frailty Index (mFI-5). Logistic regression adjusting for hernia characteristics (size, recurrent, parastomal, incisional) were performed for 30-day outcomes including surgical site infections (SSI), surgical site occurrences (SSO), surgical site infections/occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), and readmission. Multivariable analyses controlling for patient and procedure characteristics were performed comparing QOL scores (HerQLes scale, 0-100) at baseline, 30 days, 6 months and 1 year postoperatively.
RESULTS: A total of 4888 patients were included, 29.17% non-frail, 47.87% frail, and 22.95% severely frail. On adjusted analysis, severely frail patients had higher odds of SSO (most commonly seroma formation) but no evidence of a difference in SSI, SSOPI, readmission or mortality. Severely frail patients had lower median QOL scores at baseline (48.3/100, IQR 26.1-71.7, p ​= ​0.001) but reported higher QOL scores at both 30-days (68.3/100, IQR 41.7-88.3, p ​= ​0.01) and 6-months (86.7/100, IQR 65.0-93.3, p ​= ​0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: Severely frail patients reported similar increases in QOL and similar complications to their not frail counterparts. Our results demonstrate that appropriately selected older patients, even those who are severely frail, may benefit from elective VHR in the appropriate clinical circumstance.

OBJECTIVE: Use of biologic or synthetic mesh in hernia repair shifts is based on evolving evidence. Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) biosynthetic mesh is a potential alternative to biologic and synthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair (VHR). This meta-analysis assesses the efficacy of P4HB mesh in clean and contaminated surgical settings.
METHODS: Two authors searched literature on PubMed, reviewing titles and abstracts of all articles to determine inclusion eligibility. Post-operative data were compared via transformation method to convert the proportion of patients with the outcome of interest into a suitable quantity for random-effects synthesis using STATA software.
RESULTS: Initial search yielded 287 citations. Six studies were included and categorized on whether hernia repairs were conducted in clean (CDC class I) or contaminated cases (CDC class II-IV). The pooled proportion of surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), hernia recurrence, total surgical complications, and reoperation were calculated in 391 clean and 81 contaminated cases. For clean vs. contaminated cases, the following pooled proportions were noted: SSI (2% (CI 0-7%) vs 9% (CI 0-025) (p = 0.03), SSO: 14% (CI 5-25%) vs 35% (CI 22-50%) (p = 0.006), hernia recurrence (8% (CI 1-19%) vs 4% (CI 0-12%) (p = 0.769); surgical complications (17% (CI 6-32%) vs 50% (CI 27-72%) (p = 0.009). Reoperation data were available in 298 clean cases across four studies: 5% (CI 0-15%).
CONCLUSIONS: P4HB biosynthetic mesh may be more effective than previously thought, particularly in clean wounds. P4HB may also be superior to biologic mesh when compared to clinical trial data. Further research is necessary for more direct comparison.

BACKGROUND: Despite being one of the most common operations performed by general surgeons, there is a lack of consensus regarding the recommended approach for ventral hernia repair (VHR). Recent times have seen the rapid development of new techniques, such as robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the currently available evidence relating to RVHR, in comparison to open VHR (OVHR) and laparoscopic VHR (LVHR).
METHODS: A systematic search of the following databases was conducted: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed for the outcomes of length of stay (LOS), recurrence, operative time, intraoperative complications, wound complications, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, mortality and costs.
RESULTS: A total of 39 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, RVHR reduced LOS, intra-operative complications, wound complications and readmission compared to OVHR. Compared to LVHR, RVHR was associated with increased operative time and costs, with comparable clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: There is currently a lack of robust evidence to support the robotic approach in VHR. It does not demonstrate major benefits in comparison to LVHR, which is more affordable and accessible. Strong quality, long-term data is required to help with establishing a gold standard approach in VHR.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the optimal mesh fixation techniques for laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised control trials (RCTs) to investigate the advantages and disadvantages associated with absorbable tacks, non-absorbable tacks, non-absorbable sutures, non-absorbable staples, absorbable synthetic glue, absorbable sutures and non-absorbable tacks, and non-absorbable sutures and non-absorbable tacks.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed as per PRISMA-NMA guidelines. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) were extracted to compare the efficacy of the surgical approaches.
RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included with 707 patients. Short-term pain was significantly reduced in non-absorbable staples (MD; -1.56, confidence interval (CI); -2.93 to -0.19) and non-absorbable sutures (MD; -1.00, CI; -1.60 to -0.40) relative to absorbable tacks. Recurrence, length of stay, operative time, conversion to open surgery, seroma and haematoma formation were unaffected by mesh fixation technique.
CONCLUSIONS: Short-term post-operative pain maybe reduced by the use of non-absorbable sutures and non-absorbable staples. There is clinical equipoise between each modality in relation to recurrence, length of stay, and operative time.

Synthetic mesh is widely utilized for clean ventral hernia repair; however, it is unclear if synthetic mesh provides the same benefits with high-risk patients or during contaminated cases. Many surgeons use biologic mesh in these settings, but there is little evidence to support this practice. Our objective was to compare the clinical outcomes of utilizing biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh during ventral hernia repair.
Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, a review of the literature was conducted using Cochrane library, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and PubMed for randomized controlled trials published that compared biologic versus synthetic mesh during ventral hernia repair. The primary outcome was major complications defined as deep or organ space surgical site infection, reoperations, and hernia recurrences.
Of 1889 manuscripts screened, four publications were included. The four studies included a total of 758 patients, with 381 receiving biologic mesh and 377 receiving synthetic mesh. Compared to biologic mesh, synthetic mesh had lower rates of major complications (38.6% versus 23.4, risk ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval = 0.35 to 0.86, P = 0.009) and hernia recurrence (24.5 % versus 10.3%, risk ratio = 0.44, 95% confidence interval = 0.28 to 0.69, P = 0.004). In addition, there was a lower percentage of surgical site infection and reoperation in the synthetic mesh group.
Contrary to current surgical teaching, placement of permanent synthetic mesh into a contaminated field yielded rates of complications that were comparable or reduced compared to biologic mesh.

The concept of the transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) was transferred from the inguinal hernia repair to be adopted in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) and since then it has been gaining popularity. However, there are minimal data supporting the ventral TAPP (vTAPP) technique which may lead to reticence in the adoption of this approach. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the outcomes of patients who received minimally invasive vTAPP for VHR.
A systematic search was performed of PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library until July 2022. We selected studies that compared the vTAPP technique with any of other minimally invasive techniques. A meta-analysis was done for the outcomes of perioperative characteristics and postoperative parameters.
A total of 9 studies (1429 patients) were identified. vTAPP was associated with considerable benefit when compared to IPOM. vTAPP was less painful (MD = - 1.01; 95% CI [- 1.39, - 0.64], p < 0.00001), of reduced average cost (MD = - 457.10; 95% CI [- 457.27, - 456.92], p < 0.00001) and decreased SSI (OR = 0.29; 95% [0.09, 0.96], p = 0.04). On the other hand, the vTAPP approach consumed less operative time (MD: - 31.01, 95% CI [- 33.50, - 28.51]), p < 0.00001) and shorter hospital stay than the e-TEP approach.
vTAPP appears to be safe and effective procedure for VHR, superior or similar to other minimally invasive techniques for perioperative characteristics and short-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The ideal location for mesh placement in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) is still up for debate. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) to evaluate the outcomes of patients who received intraperitoneal mesh versus those that received extraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive VHR.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus from inception to May 3, 2021. We selected studies comparing intraperitoneal mesh versus extraperitoneal mesh placement in minimally invasive VHR. A meta-analysis was done for the outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI), seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence. A subgroup analysis was conducted for a subset of studies comparing patients who have undergone intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus extended totally extraperitoneal approach (e-TEP).
RESULTS: A total of 11 studies (2320 patients) were identified. We found no statistically significant difference between patients who received intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal mesh for outcomes of SSI, seroma, hematoma, readmission, and recurrence [(RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.60-4.27), (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.68-2.81), (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.45-3.72), (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.69-2.86), and (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.22-6.63), respectively]. The subgroup analysis had findings similar to the overall analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on short-term results, extraperitoneal mesh does not appear to be superior to intraperitoneal mesh in minimally invasive ventral hernia repair. The choice of mesh location should be based on the current evidence, surgeon, and center experience as well as individualized to each patient.

OBJECTIVE: To compare early postoperative outcomes after transversus abdominis release (TAR) for ventral hernia repair with open (oTAR) and robotic (rTAR) approach.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until October 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative short-term outcomes was performed including complications rate, operative time, length of stay, surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), SSO requiring intervention (SSOPI), systemic complications, readmission, and reoperation rates as measure outcomes.
RESULTS: Six retrospective studies were included in the analysis with a total of 831 patients who underwent rTAR (n = 237) and oTAR (n = 594). Robotic TAR was associated with lower risk of complications rate (9.3 vs 20.7%, OR 0.358, 95% CI 0.218-0.589, p < 0.001), lower risk of developing SSO (5.3 vs 11.5%, OR 0.669, 95% CI 0.307-1.458, p = 0.02), lower risk of developing systemic complications (6.3 vs 26.5%, OR 0.208, 95% CI 0.100-0.433, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (SMD - 4.409, 95% CI - 6.000 to - 2.818, p < 0.001) but longer operative time (SMD 53.115, 95% CI 30.236-75.993, p < 0.01) compared with oTAR. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of SSI, SSOPI, readmission, and reoperation rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic TAR improves recovery by adding the benefits of minimally invasive procedures when compared to open surgery. Although postoperative complications appear to decrease with a robotic approach, further studies are needed to support the real long-term and cost-effective advantages.

OBJECTIVE: Posterior component separation with transversus abdominis release (TAR) enables medial myofascial flap advancement in complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Here, we add to a growing body of literature on TAR by assessing longitudinal clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after complex ventral hernia repair (VHR) with TAR.
METHODS: Adult patients undergoing VHR with TAR between 10/15/2015 and 1/15/2020 were retrospectively identified. Patients with parastomal hernias and <12 months of follow-up were excluded. Clinical outcomes and PROs were assessed.
RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included with a median age and body mass index of 60 and 30.8 kg/m2, respectively. The average hernia defect was 384 cm2 [IQR 205-471], and all patients had retromuscular mesh placed. The most common complications were delayed healing (19.6%) and seroma (14.3%). There were no cases of mesh infection or explantation. Previous hernia repair and concurrent panniculectomy were risk factors for developing complications (P < .05). One patient (1.8%) recurred at a median follow-up of 25.2 months [IQR 18.2-42.4]. Significant improvement in disease-specific PROs was maintained throughout the follow-up period (before to after P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Transversus abdominis release is a safe and efficacious technique to achieve fascial closure and retromuscular mesh in the repair of complex hernia defects.

OBJECTIVE: Negative pressure wound therapy on closed incisions (iNPWT) is a wound dressing system developed to promote wound healing and avoid complications after surgical procedures. The effect of iNPWT is well established in various surgical fields, however, the effect on postoperative wound complications after ventral hernia repair remains unknown. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of iNPWT on patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair (VHR) compared with conventional wound dressing.
METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines. The databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of science and Cinahl were searched for original studies comparing iNPWT to conventional wound dressing in patients undergoing VHR. The primary outcome was surgical site occurrence (SSO), secondary outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI) and hernia recurrence.
RESULTS: The literature search identified 373 studies of which 10 were included in the meta-analysis including a total of 1087 patients. Eight studies were retrospective cohort studies, one was a cross-sectional pilot study, and one was a randomized controlled trial. The meta-analysis demonstrated that iNPWT was associated with a decreased risk of SSO (OR 0.27 [0.19, 0.38]; P < 0.001) and SSI (OR 0.32 [0.17, 0.55]; P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant association with the risk of hernia recurrence (OR 0.62 [0.27, 1.43]; P = 0.26).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis iNPWT following VHR was found to significantly reduce the incidence of SSO and SSI, compared with standard wound dressing. INPWT should be considered for patients undergoing VHR.