L C L van den Hil1,2, E H H Mommers3,4, J W A M Bosmans3,4, S Morales-Conde5, V Gómez-Gil6, K LeBlanc7, A Vanlander8, E Reynvoet8, F Berrevoet8, S Gruber-Blum9, E Altinli10, C R Deeken11, R H Fortelny12, J W Greve13, K Chiers14, R Kaufmann15, J F Lange15, U Klinge16, M Miserez17, A H Petter-Puchner9,12, M H F Schreinemacher3,4, N D Bouvy3,4. 1. Department of General Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. l.vandenhil@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. l.vandenhil@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 3. Department of General Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Unit of Innovation and Minimally Invasive Surgery, University Hospital Virgen Del Rocío, Seville, Spain. 6. Department of Surgery, Medical and Social Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Networking Research Centre on Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), University of Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain. 7. Our Lady of the Lake Physician Group, Minimally Invasive Surgery Institute, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. 8. Department of General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 9. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Experimental and Clinical Traumatology, Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Vienna, Austria. 10. Department of General Surgery, Bilim University, Istanbul, Turkey. 11. Covalent Bio, LLC, St. Louis, MO, USA. 12. Department of General Surgery, Wilhelminenspital Der Stadt Wien, Vienna, Austria. 13. Department of General Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands. 14. Department of Veterinary Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. 15. Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 16. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany. 17. Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, the lack of consensus on postoperative mesh-tissue adhesion scoring leads to incomparable scientific results. The aim of this study was to develop an adhesion score recognized by experts in the field of hernia surgery. METHODS: Authors of three or more previously published articles on both mesh-tissue adhesion scores and postoperative adhesions were marked as experts. They were queried on seven items using a modified Delphi method. The items concerned the utility of adhesion scoring models, the appropriateness of macroscopic and microscopic variables, the range and use of composite scores or subscores, adhesion-related complications and follow-up length. This study comprised two questionnaire-based rounds and one consensus meeting. RESULTS: The first round was completed by 23 experts (82%), the second round by 18 experts (64%). Of those 18 experts, ten were able to participate in the final consensus meeting and all approved the final proposal. From a total of 158 items, consensus was reached on 90 items. The amount of mesh surface covered with adhesions, tenacity and thickness of adhesions and organ involvement was concluded to be a minimal set of variables to be communicated separately in each future study on mesh adhesions. CONCLUSION: The MEsh Tissue Adhesion scoring system is the first consensus-based scoring system with a wide backing of renowned experts and can be used to assess mesh-related adhesions. By including this minimal set of variables in future research interstudy comparability and objectivity can be increased and eventually linked to clinically relevant outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Currently, the lack of consensus on postoperative mesh-tissue adhesion scoring leads to incomparable scientific results. The aim of this study was to develop an adhesion score recognized by experts in the field of hernia surgery. METHODS: Authors of three or more previously published articles on both mesh-tissue adhesion scores and postoperative adhesions were marked as experts. They were queried on seven items using a modified Delphi method. The items concerned the utility of adhesion scoring models, the appropriateness of macroscopic and microscopic variables, the range and use of composite scores or subscores, adhesion-related complications and follow-up length. This study comprised two questionnaire-based rounds and one consensus meeting. RESULTS: The first round was completed by 23 experts (82%), the second round by 18 experts (64%). Of those 18 experts, ten were able to participate in the final consensus meeting and all approved the final proposal. From a total of 158 items, consensus was reached on 90 items. The amount of mesh surface covered with adhesions, tenacity and thickness of adhesions and organ involvement was concluded to be a minimal set of variables to be communicated separately in each future study on mesh adhesions. CONCLUSION: The MEsh Tissue Adhesion scoring system is the first consensus-based scoring system with a wide backing of renowned experts and can be used to assess mesh-related adhesions. By including this minimal set of variables in future research interstudy comparability and objectivity can be increased and eventually linked to clinically relevant outcomes.
Authors: Michael P Diamond; Steven D Wexner; Gere S diZereg; Matthias Korell; Oded Zmora; Harry Van Goor; Moshe Kamar Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.058
Authors: E Dubcenco; L Assumpcao; X Dray; K L Gabrielson; D S Ruben; L J Pipitone; G Donatelli; D M Krishnamurty; J P Baker; M R Marohn; A N Kalloo Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2009-10-28 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Martine Moossdorff; Lori M van Roozendaal; Luc J A Strobbe; Stefan Aebi; David A Cameron; J Michael Dixon; Armando E Giuliano; Bruce G Haffty; Brigid E Hickey; Clifford A Hudis; V Suzanne Klimberg; Bogda Koczwara; Thorsten Kühn; Marc E Lippman; Anthony Lucci; Martine Piccart; Benjamin D Smith; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Kimberly J Van Zee; Jan B Vermorken; Giuseppe Viale; Adri C Voogd; Irene L Wapnir; Julia R White; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Marc H F Schreinemacher; Kevin W Y van Barneveld; Rieky E G Dikmans; Marion J J Gijbels; Jan-Willem M Greve; Nicole D Bouvy Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-06-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ellen Peeters; Kevin W Y van Barneveld; Marc H Schreinemacher; Gert De Hertogh; Yves Ozog; Nicole Bouvy; Marc Miserez Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Richard P G ten Broek; Yama Issa; Evert J P van Santbrink; Nicole D Bouvy; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Johannes Jeekel; Erica A Bakkum; Maroeska M Rovers; Harry van Goor Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-10-03