S J Baig1, M Y Afaque2, P Priya3, H Sheth4, R Goel5, K K Mahawar6, R Agarwalla7. 1. Belle Vue Clinic, Kolkata, India. 2. J N Medical College, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India. 3. Belle Vue Clinic, Kolkata, India. drpallawipriya@gmail.com. 4. Department of Minimally Invasive Surgical Sciences, Saifee Hospital, Mumbai, India. 5. Center of Bariatric Surgery, Wockhardt Hospital, Mumbai, India. 6. South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, UK. 7. Fortis Hospitals, Kolkata, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is considerable variation in the practice of ventral hernia repair (VHR). Consequently, both short- and long-term outcomes are different. We report the first multicenter data from India on the variations in procedures and short-term outcomes after ventral hernia repair. METHODS: A prospective study was planned under the aegis of the Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo Surgeons (IAGES). Participating surgeons prospectively recorded the data of patients who underwent VHR from January 21, 2021, to April 20, 2021. Patients were followed for 3-6 months. RESULTS: Data from 648 patients were analyzed for demographics, hernia characteristics, technical variations, and outcomes. 375 (57.8%) were primary hernias (PH) and 273 (42.15%) were incisional hernias (IH), of which 63 (9.7%) were recurrent hernias. In the PH group, there were 171 minimal access (MAS) and 170 open repair. In descending order of frequency, there were 111 (32.6%) open onlay, 83 (24.3%) intraperitoneal onlay meshplasty (IPOM) Plus, 36 (10.6%) IPOM, 35 (10.3%) suture repair, 22 (6.5%) endoscopic Rives Stoppa (eRS), 11 (3.2%) open RS, 11 (3.2%) TAPP, 7 (2%) hybrid, 6 (1.8%) open preperitoneal, 19 (5.6%) others. There were 3.73% seroma, 3.2% SSI, 0% 90-day readmission, 0% recurrence, and 0.3% mortality. In the IH group, 164 patients underwent open repair and 104 MAS repair. In descending order of frequency, there were 90 (33.6%) open onlay, 47 (17.5%) IPOM Plus, 38 (14.1%) open sublay, 28 (10.4%) IPOM, 12 (4.5%) Transversus Abdominis Release (TAR), 11 (4.1%) suture repair, 9 (3.4%) open preperitoneal, 7 (2.6%) hybrid, 6 (2.2%) TAPP, 5 (1.9%) eRS, 4 (1.5%) TARM, 3 (1.1%) endoscopic TAR (eTAR), and 8 (3%) others. There were 13.92% seroma, 4.4% hematoma, 9.5% SSI, 1.1% mesh explantation, 0.4% wound sinus, 2.2% 90-day readmission, 0% recurrence, and 1.1% mortality. CONCLUSION: Onlay meshplasty is the commonest procedure in India both in PH and IH. IPOM/IPOM plus is the second commonest procedure. TAR is the preferred component separation technique. Complication rates were comparable to published literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical Trial Registry of India. CTRI number-CTRI/2021/01/030435.
INTRODUCTION: There is considerable variation in the practice of ventral hernia repair (VHR). Consequently, both short- and long-term outcomes are different. We report the first multicenter data from India on the variations in procedures and short-term outcomes after ventral hernia repair. METHODS: A prospective study was planned under the aegis of the Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo Surgeons (IAGES). Participating surgeons prospectively recorded the data of patients who underwent VHR from January 21, 2021, to April 20, 2021. Patients were followed for 3-6 months. RESULTS: Data from 648 patients were analyzed for demographics, hernia characteristics, technical variations, and outcomes. 375 (57.8%) were primary hernias (PH) and 273 (42.15%) were incisional hernias (IH), of which 63 (9.7%) were recurrent hernias. In the PH group, there were 171 minimal access (MAS) and 170 open repair. In descending order of frequency, there were 111 (32.6%) open onlay, 83 (24.3%) intraperitoneal onlay meshplasty (IPOM) Plus, 36 (10.6%) IPOM, 35 (10.3%) suture repair, 22 (6.5%) endoscopic Rives Stoppa (eRS), 11 (3.2%) open RS, 11 (3.2%) TAPP, 7 (2%) hybrid, 6 (1.8%) open preperitoneal, 19 (5.6%) others. There were 3.73% seroma, 3.2% SSI, 0% 90-day readmission, 0% recurrence, and 0.3% mortality. In the IH group, 164 patients underwent open repair and 104 MAS repair. In descending order of frequency, there were 90 (33.6%) open onlay, 47 (17.5%) IPOM Plus, 38 (14.1%) open sublay, 28 (10.4%) IPOM, 12 (4.5%) Transversus Abdominis Release (TAR), 11 (4.1%) suture repair, 9 (3.4%) open preperitoneal, 7 (2.6%) hybrid, 6 (2.2%) TAPP, 5 (1.9%) eRS, 4 (1.5%) TARM, 3 (1.1%) endoscopic TAR (eTAR), and 8 (3%) others. There were 13.92% seroma, 4.4% hematoma, 9.5% SSI, 1.1% mesh explantation, 0.4% wound sinus, 2.2% 90-day readmission, 0% recurrence, and 1.1% mortality. CONCLUSION: Onlay meshplasty is the commonest procedure in India both in PH and IH. IPOM/IPOM plus is the second commonest procedure. TAR is the preferred component separation technique. Complication rates were comparable to published literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical Trial Registry of India. CTRI number-CTRI/2021/01/030435.
Authors: Lucas Timmermans; Barry de Goede; Sven M van Dijk; Gert-Jan Kleinrensink; Johannes Jeekel; Johan F Lange Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2013-10-26 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: R Bittner; K Bain; V K Bansal; F Berrevoet; J Bingener-Casey; D Chen; J Chen; P Chowbey; U A Dietz; A de Beaux; G Ferzli; R Fortelny; H Hoffmann; M Iskander; Z Ji; L N Jorgensen; R Khullar; P Kirchhoff; F Köckerling; J Kukleta; K LeBlanc; J Li; D Lomanto; F Mayer; V Meytes; M Misra; S Morales-Conde; H Niebuhr; D Radvinsky; B Ramshaw; D Ranev; W Reinpold; A Sharma; R Schrittwieser; B Stechemesser; B Sutedja; J Tang; J Warren; D Weyhe; A Wiegering; G Woeste; Q Yao Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Deverick J Anderson; Kelly Podgorny; Sandra I Berríos-Torres; Dale W Bratzler; E Patchen Dellinger; Linda Greene; Ann-Christine Nyquist; Lisa Saiman; Deborah S Yokoe; Lisa L Maragakis; Keith S Kaye Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: F Köckerling; H Hoffmann; F Mayer; K Zarras; W Reinpold; R Fortelny; D Weyhe; B Lammers; D Adolf; C Schug-Pass Journal: Hernia Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: F Köckerling; W Brunner; R Fortelny; F Mayer; D Adolf; H Niebuhr; R Lorenz; W Reinpold; K Zarras; D Weyhe Journal: Hernia Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Frederik Helgstrand; Jacob Rosenberg; Henrik Kehlet; Lars N Jorgensen; Thue Bisgaard Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 6.113