BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia is a common surgical problem among patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), while the optimal repair technique for small ventral hernias is controversial. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of open suture repair versus biological mesh repair of small ventral hernias with defect size ≤2 cm in ESKD patients.
METHODS: Data from consecutive ESKD patients who underwent elective ventral hernia repair with defect size ≤2 cm at a single institution from January 2012 to January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes of open suture repair were compared to PermacolTM mesh repair. The primary outcome was recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes included post-operative complications, peri-operative and post-operative dialysis regimen.
RESULTS: Forty-seven ventral hernia repairs were included, with 20 being suture repairs and 27 being PermacolTM mesh repairs. Median age at hernia repair was 60 (range 32-81) years old. Pre-operatively, 42 patients (89.4%) were on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Paraumbilical hernia (59.6%) was most common. Median hernia defect size was 15 mm (range 2-20 mm). Upon median follow-up of 56 (range 9-119) months, more patients in the suture repair group developed recurrence (30% vs. 0%, p = 0.004). Median time to recurrence was 10 (range 5-16) months. There was no wound or mesh infection. The majority of patients underwent intermittent PD peri-operatively and were able to resume on PD in the long run.
CONCLUSIONS: Ventral hernia repair is indicated in ESKD patients even for small defects; repair with PermacolTM mesh was associated with a lower recurrence rate when compared to suture repair and post-operative morbidity was low.

UNASSIGNED: Primary and secondary chest wall tumors (bone, breast, and soft tissue), congenital defects, and chest wall osteoradionecrosis often require extensive full-thickness local excisions to guarantee safe oncological margins (in cases of tumors) and complex reconstruction to provide stabilization and good biomechanical results avoiding postoperative respiratory failure. Thus, a personalized approach is required when dealing with chest wall defects, and reconstruction is planned. This review summarizes failed chest wall reconstruction procedures, identifies causes of failure, and highlights principles for complex chest wall reconstruction post-failure.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a narrative review of the literature on PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, including all the relevant studies published from 1970.
UNASSIGNED: The available experiences in literature are only anecdotic and no current guidelines or rules exist on this topic, also given to its rarity. Proper pre-surgical planning and a multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion are crucial for complex cases such as infections and radiation-induced chest ulcers after previous surgical treatment. Procedures should eventually include thoracic wall debridement, necrotic tissue excision, pulse-jet lavage, prosthesis removal, and vacuum assisted closure (VAC) therapy as a bridge for chest wall re-reconstruction. Sternotomy wounds require wire and prosthesis removal, and the use of meshes or bone allografts. This review aims to summarize experiences and highlight surgical and oncologic principles for complex chest wall reconstruction after failure.
UNASSIGNED: This review summarizes literature experiences to identify common key points for chest wall reconstruction after failure and to give some advice to surgeons managing this rare, challenging surgery.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) defines a disturbed defecation process frequently associated with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women that substantially compromises quality of life. Conservative management offers limited relief and a surgical intervention may be required. This is characterized by individual approaches. AIM OF THE STUDY: This retrospective single center study evaluated the surgical and clinical short-term outcome of a novel interdisciplinary laparoscopic resection rectopexy (L-RRP) with mesh- sacrocolpopexy (L-SCP) for women suffering from ODS and POP.
METHODS: The study participants underwent surgery in an interdisciplinary laparoscopic approach. Safety was the primary endpoint, assessed via postoperative morbidity classified by Clavien-Dindo scale. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of bowel function, fecal and urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse status at 12 months follow-up. Additionally, a biological mesh (BM) was offered to women, who asked for an alternative to synthetic mesh material (SM).
RESULTS: Of the 44 consecutive patients requiring surgery for ODS and POP, 36 patients underwent the interdisciplinary surgical approach; 28 patients with SM and 8 patients with BM. In total 5 complications occurred, four of them were classified as minor. One minor complication was observed in the BM group. One anastomotic leakage occurred in the SM group. The two ODS scores, the bowel dysfunction score, and the incontinence score improved significantly (p = 0.006, p = 0.003, p < 0.001, and p = 0.0035, respectively). Pelvic floor anatomy was fully restored (POP-Q 0) for 29 (80%) patients after surgery. 17 patients (47%) suffered from urinary incontinence before surgery, which was restored in 13 patients (76.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: The interdisciplinary approach with L-RRP and L-SCP and the use of a BM in a small subgroup were technically feasible, safe, and effective in this single center setting. The study\'s retrospective design, the small sample size and the lack of comparators limit the generalizability of the findings requiring future randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov, trial number NCT05910021, date of registration 06/10/2023.

暂无摘要。

Introduction: Parastomal hernia repair remains a challenge. We describe a robotic retromuscular non-keyhole mesh repair using a synthetically reinforced biological mesh (Ovitex) for the repair of complex and/or recurrent parastomal hernia and technical modifications we made along the way to improve our technique. Methods: All patients underwent the described retromuscular parastomal hernia repair. Data was collected in a database and a retrospective analysis was performed on direct postoperative results and early follow-up. Results: Eleven patients underwent the operation. Median follow-up was 12 months. Median LOS was 6 days. Two recurrences occurred. One patient suffered postoperative hematoma and skin necrosis, which healed completely, but did lead to a recurrence. One patient had a significant seroma, which subsided without intervention. Both recurrences were reoperated, and a local repair was performed. Conclusion: This paper is the first to describe a modified robotic Pauli repair for complex and recurrent parastomal hernia, using a synthetically reinforced biological mesh. Results are satisfying so far, especially considering the complexity of the cases.

UNASSIGNED: Inguinal hernia repair is a routine surgical procedure and many methods are being applied to improve the operation. In this study, an abdominal wall defect model was established in New Zealand rabbits. The safety and efficacy of the test product was evaluated by observing the physiological state and clinical manifestations and conducting anatomical observations in the rabbits after use of the nano-silver-poly-DL-lactide-co-caprolactone-small intestinal submucosa (NS-PLCL-SIS) mesh.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 18 New Zealand rabbits were randomly divided into a test group and a blank group. Routine blood and serum biochemical tests, and anatomical observations were conducted on postoperative day 30 (D30), day 60 (D60), and day 90 (D90). During the study period, all animals underwent clinical observation, and the obtained data were counted.
UNASSIGNED: The results showed that the NS-PLCL-SIS mesh was degraded within 90 days, and there was no abnormal reaction and no animal death during the test. There was no significant difference in the changes of animal body weight at each time point. There was no infectious inflammatory reaction in the wound at the study site, and the ocular wound healed well 7 days after the operation.
UNASSIGNED: Under the conditions of this experiment, the NS-PLCL-SIS mesh had good performance in the repair of abdominal wall defect in New Zealand rabbits and is clinically safe for veterinarians.

We evaluate postoperative complications, aesthetic results and satisfaction outcomes in patients with breast cancer after intervening with a skin-sparing or nipple-sparing mastectomy with an immediate prosthetic reconstruction with or without a biological mesh. Patients with multifocal breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ with an indication for a mastectomy and cT2 tumors with no response to primary systemic treatment were included, whereas patients aged >75 years, with inflammatory carcinoma, and severe circulatory disorders were excluded. Patients in the control group were reconstructed using a prosthesis, whereas the study group included patients reconstructed using a prosthesis and biological acellular porcine dermal mesh (Strattice™). In both groups, the result was assessed using the BREAST-Q instrument. A total of 51 patients (62 intervened breasts) were included in the study group and 38 patients (41 intervened breasts) in the control group. Implant loss and removal occurred in three patients in the study group (5.9%) and nine patients in the control group (24.3%; p = 0.030). Infections appeared in three patients in the study group (4.8%) and three patients in the control group (7.3%; p = 1.00). Skin necrosis appeared in 5 patients in the study group (12.2%) and 11 patients in the control group (21.6%; p = 0.367). Seroma appeared in five patients in the study group (12.2%) and five patients in the control group (8.1%; p = 0.514). The BREAST-Q questionnaire is a comparison between both groups regarding \"satisfaction with breasts after surgery\" (p = 0.026), \"sexual well-being after intervention\" (p = 0.010) and \"satisfaction with the information received\" (p = 0.049). We have noted a statistically significant decrease in implant loss in women receiving an implant with a biological mesh. A higher satisfaction was observed in patients reconstructed using Strattice™, with statistically significant differences in three items.

Introduction: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) is the standard procedure for the treatment of posterior pelvic organ prolapse. Despite significant functional improvement and anatomical corrections, severe complications related to mesh augmentation can occur in a few proportions of patients. In order to decrease the number of rare but severe complications, we developed a variant of the conventional VMR without any rectal fixation and using a robotic approach with biological mesh. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with synthetic mesh (LVMRS) to those of robotic ventral rectopexy with biological mesh (RVMRB). Methods: Between 2004 and 2021, patients operated on for VMR in our unit were identified and separated into two groups: LVMRS and RVMRB. The surgical technique for both groups consisted of VMR without any rectal fixation, with mesh distally secured on the levator ani muscles. Results: 269 patients with a mean age of 62 years were operated for posterior pelvic floor disorder: rectocele (61.7%) and external rectal prolapse (34.6%). 222 (82.5%) patients received LVMRS (2004-2015), whereas 47 were operated with RVMRB (2015-2021). Both groups slightly differed for combined anterior fixation proportion (LVMRS 39% vs. RVMRB 6.4%, p < 0.001). Despite these differences, the length of stay was shorter in the RVMRB group (2 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were comparable in the two groups (1.8 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.089) and mainly consisted of minor complications. Functional outcomes were favorable and similar in both groups, with an improvement in bulging, obstructed defecation symptoms, and fecal incontinence (NS in subgroup analysis). In the long term, there were no mesh erosions reported. The overall recurrence rate was 11.9%, and was comparable in the two groups (13% LVMRS vs. 8.5, p = 0.43). Conclusions: VMR without rectal fixation is a safe and effective approach in posterior organ prolapse management. RVMRB provides comparable results in terms of recurrence and functional results, with avoidance of unabsorbable material implantation.

BACKGROUND: A symptomatic perineal hernia is an uncommon complication after abdominoperineal resection (APR). Repairs of such hernias can be achieved by usage of autologous flaps, synthetic mesh, or biologic mesh, which reduce bowel adhesions. Studies have shown that prophylactic repair of the pelvic floor with biologic mesh during APR, can reduce the incidence of perineal hernia.
METHODS: A 71-year-old woman, after extended APR (eAPR) with primary closure of pelvic floor with absorbable mesh, presented to our outpatient clinic with a symptomatic, extensive perineal hernia. The patient underwent repair of the perineal hernia using a synthetic mesh and a bilateral gluteal flap procedure. In post operative care, signs of surgical site infection and a fluid collection demonstrated in a CT-scan, compelled a surgical drainage. A clear fluid negative for bacterial growth was drained and antibiotic treatment was initiated. After drainage, surgical site showed signs of significant improvement and patient was eventually discharged.
CONCLUSIONS: The rise in reported incidence of perineal hernia after eAPR coupled with the scarcity of data regarding the preferable repair technique suggests that there is a significant need for further prospective comparative studies.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernia is a frequent complication after loop-ileostomy closure, rationalizing hernia prevention. Biological meshes have been widely used in contaminated surgical sites instead of synthetic meshes in fear of mesh related complications. However, previous studies on meshes does not support this practice. The aim of Preloop trial was to study the safety and efficacy of synthetic mesh compared to a biological mesh in incisional hernia prevention after loop-ileostomy closure.
METHODS: The Preloop randomized, feasibility trial was conducted from April 2018 until November 2021 in four hospitals in Finland. The trial enrolled 102 patients with temporary loop-ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer. The study patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either a light-weight synthetic polypropylene mesh (Parietene Macro™, Medtronic) (SM) or a biological mesh (Permacol™, Medtronic) (BM) to the retrorectus space at ileostomy closure. The primary end points were rate of surgical site infections (SSI) at 30-day follow-up and incisional hernia rate during 10 months\' follow-up period.
RESULTS: Of 102 patients randomized, 97 received the intended allocation. At 30-day follow-up, 94 (97%) patients were evaluated. In the SM group, 1/46 (2%) had SSI. Uneventful recovery was reported in 38/46 (86%) in SM group. In the BM group, 2/48 (4%) had SSI (p > 0.90) and in 43/48 (90%) uneventful recovery was reported. The mesh was removed from one patient in both groups (p > 0.90).
CONCLUSIONS: Both a synthetic mesh and biological mesh were safe in terms of SSI after loop-ileostomy closure. Hernia prevention efficacy will be published after the study patients have completed the 10 months\' follow-up.