Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / @xirurgi_2025 / @xirurgi_2025 - 362 - файл

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
29.08.2026
Размер:
50 Мб
Скачать
28 Self-Gripping Mesh Repair inPrimary Inguinal Hernia
Table 28.1 (continued)
Publication Rönkä etal.
(FinnMesh) [31]
Smeds etal. [32] Hernia 2015 Secondary
Nikkolo etal. [33] J Surg Res
Wang etal. [34] Asian J Surg
Fan etal. [35] Hernia 2016 Randomized
Verhagen etal. [36]
Cadanová etal. [37]
Nikkolo etal. [38] J Surg Res
Ismail etal. [39] Surgery 2017 Systematic
Molegraaf etal. [40]
Journal and year Type of study Results
Ann Surg 2015 Randomized
2015
2016
BJS 2016 Randomized
Hernia 2016 Randomized
2017
Ann Surg 2017 Randomized
clinical trial
exploratory
study
Randomized
clinical trial
Retrospective
study
clinical trial
clinical trial
clinical trial
Randomized
clinical trial
review
clinical trial
Mesh xation without sutures does not cause less inguinodynia than suture xation, but it is faster and easier and feasible without compromising postoperative outcome The use of self-gripping mesh was shown to reduce the level of postoperative pain when the iliohypogastric nerve was preserved. Resection of the nerve during Lichtenstein repair eliminates this difference Self-gripping mesh compared with standard Lichtenstein operation has no advantages in reducing chronic pain 6months after surgery. The rate of foreign body feeling was higher in the self-gripping mesh group No recurrences recorded
The use of self-gripping mesh effectively reduces the operating time with comparable long-term surgical outcome with traditional polypropylene mesh A self-gripping mesh for hernia repair may result in less pain in the early postoperative phase, but chronic postherniorrhaphy pain is not affected No signicant difference in chronic pain between the inguinal repairs with the use of a self-gripping mesh compared with a transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) repair at 1year after surgery We failed to demonstrate the advantages of self-gripping mesh in terms of chronic pain and foreign body feeling. However, usage of self-gripping mesh does not increase hernia recurrence rate Data from our analysis did not favor either of the two xation techniques over the other in terms of recurrence or postoperative chronic groin pain The self-gripping ProGrip mesh does not reduce CPIP rates. Outcomes of the ProGrip mesh are comparable to the Lichtenstein technique with the additional advantage of a reduced operation time
281
a poor denition of chronic postoperative ingui­nal pain. For the sake of brevity, most of the stud­ies agree on a reduction of early postoperative pain and need of analgesic, but unfortunately there is no evidence of reduced CPIP, especially when the iliohypogastric nerve is not preserved. However, a common nding highlighted by most of the papers is the signicantly shorter time needed to x the prosthesis and an overall faster surgical procedure that would allow a more ef­cient utilization of the operating theater and staff; this makes the use of these devices feasible from a health economics point of view. Moreover, there is no major technical difference between
the procedures apart from the xation steps, and more than one author has stated that the suture­less technique is easy to use and learn; this is cru­cial since inguinal hernia repair is among the rst procedures performed by general surgery residents.
In conclusion, a general surgeon dedicated to the treatment of abdominal wall defect should include in his armamentarium the ability to per­form an open anterior tension-free inguinal her­nia repair with a self-gripping mesh in order to tailor on the need of the patients his surgical approach.
282
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
M. G. Muzi et al.
References
1. Lichtenstein IL, Shulman G.Ambulatory outpatient hernia surgery including a new concept introducing tension-free repair. Int Surg. 1986;71:1–4.
2. Simons M, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treat­ment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia. 2009;13:343–403.
3. Pokorny H, Klingler A, Schmid T, Fortelny R, Hollinsky C, Kawji R, Steiner E, Pernthaler H, Függer R, Scheyer M.Recurrence and complications after laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: results of a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Hernia. 2008;12:385–9.
4. van Veen R, Wijsmuller A, Vrijland W, Hop W, Lange J, Jeekel J.Long-term follow-up of a randomized clin­ical trial of non-mesh versus mesh repair of primary inguinal hernia. Br J Surg. 2007;94:506–10.
5. Merskey H, Bogduk N. Classication of chronic pain: descriptions of chronic pain syndromes and denitions of pain terms. In: Task force on taxon­omy of the IASP. 2nd ed. Seattle: IASP Press; 1994. p.209–14.
6. OʼReilly E, Burke J, OʼConnell P.A meta-analysis of surgical morbidity and recurrence after laparoscopic and open repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Ann Surg. 2012;255:846–53.
7. Kingsnorth A. Classifying postherniorrhaphy pain syndromes following elective inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg. 2007;31:1766–7.
8. Hakeem A. Inguinodynia following Lichtenstein tension-free hernia repair: a review. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:1791.
9. Dittrick G, Ridl K, Kuhn J, McCarty T.Routine ilio­inguinal nerve excision in inguinal hernia repairs. Am J Surg. 2004;188:736–40.
10. Miserez M, Peeters E, Aufenacker T, et al. Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia. 2014;18:151–63.
11. Testini M, Lissidini G, Poli E, Gurrado A, Lardo D, Piccinni G.A single-surgeon randomized trial com­paring sutures, N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate and human brin glue for mesh xation during primary inguinal hernia repair. Can J Surg. 2010;53:155–60.
12. Campanelli G, Pascual M, Hoeferlin A, Rosenberg J, Champault G, Kingsnorth A, Miserez M.Randomized, controlled, blinded trial of tisseel/tissucol for mesh xation in patients undergoing Lichtenstein tech­nique for primary inguinal hernia repair. Ann Surg. 2012;255:650–7.
13. Chastan P. Tension free open inguinal hernia repair using an innovative self gripping semi-resorbable mesh. J Minim Access Surg. 2006;2:139–7.
14. Covidien Parietex ProGripTM. 2017. http://www.
medtronic.com/content/dam/covidien/library/us/en/ product/hernia-repair/parietex-progrip-self-xating­mesh-vac-pack.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar 2017.
15. Chastan P. Tension-free open hernia repair using an innovative self-gripping semi-resorbable mesh. Hernia. 2008;13:137–42.
16. Kapischke M, Schulze H, Caliebe A. Self-xating mesh for the Lichtenstein procedure—a prestudy. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2010;395:317–22.
17. Bruna Esteban M, Cantos Pallarés M, Sánchez De Rojas E.Use of adhesive mesh in hernioplasty com­pared to the conventional technique. Results of a ran­domised prospective study. Cir Esp. 2010;88:253–8.
18. Anadol A, Akin M, Kurukahvecioglu O, Tezel E, Ersoy E. A prospective comparative study of the efcacy of conventional lichtenstein versus self­adhesive mesh repair for inguinal hernia. Surg Today. 2011;41:1498–503.
19. García Ureña M, Hidalgo M, Feliu X, Velasco M, Revuelta S, Gutiérrez R, Utrera A, Porrero J, Marín M, Zaragoza C. Multicentric observational study of pain after the use of a self-gripping lightweight mesh. Hernia. 2011;15:511–5.
20. Kingsnorth A, Gingell-Littlejohn M, Nienhuijs S, Schüle S, Appel P, Ziprin P, Eklund A, Miserez M, Smeds S. Randomized controlled multicenter inter­national clinical trial of self-gripping Parietex™ ProGrip™ polyester mesh versus lightweight poly­propylene mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: interim results at 3 months. Hernia. 2012;16:287–94.
21. Quyn A, Weatherhead K, Daniel T.Chronic pain after open inguinal hernia surgery: suture xation versus self-adhesive mesh repair. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2012;397:1215–8.
22. Pierides G, Scheinin T, Remes V, Hermunen K, Vironen J.Randomized comparison of self-xating and sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2012;99:630–6.
23. Jorgensen L, Rosenberg J. Authors’ reply: random­ized clinical trial of self-gripping mesh versus sutured mesh for Lichtenstein hernia repair ( Br J Surg 2013; 100: 474-481). Br J Surg. 2013;100:1539.
24. Gys T, Gys B, Lafullarde T.The use of a self-gripping mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. A prospective observational single surgeon study. Acta Chir Belg. 2013;113:192–5.
25. Sajid M, Farag S, Singh K, Miles W.Systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials comparing the role of self-gripping mesh against suture mesh xation in patients undergoing open inguinal hernia repair. Updat Surg. 2013;66:189–96.
26. Zhang C, Li F, Zhang H, Zhong W, Shi D, Zhao Y.Self-gripping versus sutured mesh for inguinal her­nia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. J Surg Res. 2013;185:653–60.
27. Pandanaboyana S, Mittapalli D, Rao A, Prasad R, Ahmad N. Meta-analysis of self-gripping mesh (Progrip) versus sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Surgeon. 2014;12:87–93.
28. Li J, Ji Z, Li Y.The comparison of self-gripping mesh and sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. Ann Surg. 2014;259:1080–5.
28 Self-Gripping Mesh Repair inPrimary Inguinal Hernia
283
29. Fang Z, Zhou J, Ren F, Liu D. Self-gripping mesh versus sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair: system review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2014;207:773–81.
30. Sanders D, Nienhuijs S, Ziprin P, Miserez M, Gingell­Littlejohn M, Smeds S. Randomized clinical trial comparing self-gripping mesh with suture xation of lightweight polypropylene mesh in open inguinal her­nia repair. Br J Surg. 2014;101:1373–82.
31. Rönkä K, Vironen J, Kössi J, etal. Randomized mul­ticenter trial comparing glue xation, self-gripping mesh, and suture xation of mesh in Lichtenstein hernia repair (FinnMesh Study). Ann Surg. 2015;262: 714–20.
32. Smeds S, Nienhuijs S, Kullman E, Sanders D, Lehnert T, Ziprin P, Gingell-Littlejohn M, Miserez M, Kingsnorth A.Identication and management of the ilio-inguinal and ilio-hypogastric nerves in open inguinal hernia repair: benets of self-gripping mesh. Hernia. 2015;20:33–41.
33. Nikkolo C, Vaasna T, Murruste M, Seepter H, Suumann J, Tein A, Kirsimägi Ü, Lepner U.Single­center, single-blinded, randomized study of self­gripping versus sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. J Surg Res. 2015;194:77–82.
34. Wang Y, Zhang X.Short-term results of open ingui­nal hernia repair with self-gripping Parietex ProGrip mesh in China: a retrospective study of 90 cases. Asian J Surg. 2016;39:218–24.
35. Fan J, Yip J, Foo D, Lo O, Law W. Randomized trial comparing self gripping semi re-absorbable
mesh (PROGRIP) with polypropylene mesh in open inguinal hernioplasty: the 6 years result. Hernia. 2016;21:9–16.
36. Verhagen T, Zwaans W, Loos M, Charbon J, Scheltinga M, Roumen R.Randomized clinical trial comparing self-gripping mesh with a standard poly­propylene mesh for open inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2016;103:812–8.
37. Čadanová D, van Dijk J, Mollen R.The transingui­nal preperitoneal technique (TIPP) in inguinal hernia repair does not cause less chronic pain in relation to the ProGrip technique: a prospective double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing the TIPP tech­nique, using the PolySoft mesh, with the ProGrip self­xing semi-resorbable mesh. Hernia. 2016;21:17–27.
38. Nikkolo C, Vaasna T, Murruste M, Suumann J, Kirsimägi Ü, Seepter H, Tein A, Lepner U.Three­year results of a randomized study comparing self­gripping mesh with sutured mesh in open inguinal hernia repair. J Surg Res. 2017;209:139–44.
39. Ismail A, Abushouk A, Elmaraezy A, Abdelkarim A, Shehata M, Abozaid M, Ahmed H, Negida A. Self­gripping versus sutured mesh xation methods for open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review of clinical tri­als and observational studies. Surgery. 2017;162(1):18–
36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.12.028.
40. Molegraaf M, Grotenhuis B, Torensma B, de Ridder V, Lange J, Swank D.The HIPPO trial, a randomized double-blind trial comparing self-gripping parietex progrip mesh and sutured parietex mesh in Lichtenstein hernioplasty. Ann Surg. 2017;266(6):939–45.
Gilbert Technique:
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
PHS Bilayer Repair
JerroldYoung andArthurI.Gilbert
29
29.1 Anatomy: Principles ofRepair
Over the past 120years, because of the complex­ity of the anatomy of the groin region, and the goal of simplifying the procedure so that all gen­eral surgeons can have acceptable outcomes, there have been many different techniques described for inguinal hernia repair. The ideal hernia repair would be performed as an outpa­tient procedure under local anesthesia, with a short operative time, at low cost, with low risk for other side effects and complications. There should be few recurrences and minimal post-op and long-term discomfort and disability. The technique should have a short learning curve, with excellent reproducible results when per­formed by all general surgeons as well as experts. Because there is no single repair which has all of these desired outcomes, there has been continued investigation and analysis of new concepts and techniques and rebirth of old techniques.
The underlying principle of all groin hernia repairs is to reduce the herniating intra-abdomi­nal or preperitoneal contents behind the musculo­aponeurotic plane of the abdominal wall and prevent them from coming out again. All groin
J. Young, M.D., F.A.C.S. (*) A. I. Gilbert, M.D., F.A.C.S. The Daughtry Family Department of Surgery, Hernia Institute of Florida, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA
hernias protrude through the myopectineal orice (MPO), the opening in the lower abdominal wall surrounded by musculoaponeurotic structures as described by Henri Fruchaud in 1956 [1] (Fig.29.1).
The boundaries of the MPO are:
Medial—the lateral edge of the rectus muscle
and its fascia.
Superior—the transversus abdominis muscle.
Fig. 29.1 Myopectineal orice: Anterior view. KEY (1)
transversus abdominis, (2) iliohypogastric n, (3) inguinal ligament, (4) iliopsoas, (5) femoral a and v, (6) spermatic cord, testicular a and v, (7) ilioinguinal n on spermatic cord, (8) rectus ap. attachment to pubic tubercle, (9) rectus abdominis, (10) anterior rectus sheath, (11) femoral canal, (12) inferior epigastric a and v, (13) transversalis fascia, (14) deep inguinal ring
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 G. Campanelli (ed.), The Art of Hernia Surgery, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72626-7_29
285
286
Fig. 29.2 MPO: Posterior view—triple triangles. KEY (1)
transversalis fascia, (2) inferior epigastric a and v, (3) exter­nal iliac a and v, (4) deep inguinal ring, (5) spermatic cord, (6) Cooper’s ligament, (7) lacunar ligament, (8) iliopsoas, (9) ilio-pubic tract, (10) testicular a and v, (11) genitofemo­ral n, (12) vas deferens, (13) lateral femoral cutaneous n, (14) corona mortis, (15) femoral canal, (16) transversus abdominis, (17) rectus abdominis Orange, medial triangle Yellow, lateral triangle Green, femoral triangle
Lateral—the iliopsoas muscle. Inferior—the pectineal (Cooper’s) ligament.
The MPO is further divided into the “triple triangles” of the groin (Fig.29.2). The femoral triangle is below the inguinal ligament (IL). There are two inguinal triangles above the ingui­nal ligament: a medial triangle (direct) and a lat­eral triangle (indirect) separated by the deep epigastric vessels [2]. Ideally, groin hernia repairs should protect all three triangles to prevent recur­rences. Appreciation of these factors is important to the long-term success of any repair in which a prosthetic device is used. Coverage of the MPO can be accomplished from an open approach with either sutures or an onlay prosthesis, by an open or laparoscopically placed posterior patch behind the MPO or by a combination of anterior and posterior coverage.
J. Young and A. I. Gilbert
this single area of surgery allowed him to develop expertise and skills that led him to be a world leader in the eld. He delved into the history of hernia surgery dating back many centuries, learn­ing the importance of the anatomy and physiology of the abdominal wall. He traveled to Padua to see the workplace of Edoardo Bassini and at its uni­versity to see the Theatrum Anatomicum. In his quest to learn from known accomplished herniolo­gists, he went to Toronto to meet with Nicholas Obney at the Shouldice Hospital, to Los Angeles to visit with Irving Lichtenstein, to NewYork City to operate with George Wantz, to Paris to operate with Jean Pallier, and to Amiens to operate with Rene Stoppa. He met with many other prominent surgeons including Campanelli, Chevrel, Flamant, Negrro, Kreuzer, and Schumpelick who were part of G.R.E.P.A. (“Groupe de Recherche et d’Etudes de la Paroi Abdominale”), which later became the European Hernia Society [3]. He embraced the camaraderie of other surgeons with an interest in hernia surgery, and in the 1980s, he invited many colleagues from the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Israel, and Europe to par­ticipate in hernia surgery conferences in Miami. In 1997, at an organizational meeting in Miami hosted by Dr. Gilbert, the American Hernia Society was founded, and Dr. Gilbert became its rst presi­dent. Dr. Gilbert’s approach to hernia repair has mirrored that of general surgeons around the world, initially using suture repairs and then switching to mesh repairs as surgeons and patients became frustrated and dissatised with high recur­rence rates requiring additional procedures. The concept of placing mesh behind the muscle led to the development of a bilayer repair with the PHS, a technique in which two layers of mesh attached by a “connector” are placed behind and in front of the muscles, requiring very few sutures [4].
29.2 Background: Lessons
fromHistory
In 1979, Dr. Arthur Gilbert, a general surgeon in Miami, Florida, decided to devote his career to the discipline of “herniology,” the study of abdominal wall hernias. By 1984, Dr. Gilbert’s dedication to
29.3 Suture Repairs
Edoardo Bassini, of Padua, is credited with beginning the modern era of hernia surgery. Through an anterior open approach, he ligated the peritoneal sac, then opened the posterior wall of the inguinal canal, and constructed a sutured, three-layered tissue repair in 262 patients with a
29 Gilbert Technique: PHS Bilayer Repair
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
287
failure rate of less than 3% [5]. A simplication of this technique was developed to avoid opening the posterior wall, with approximation of the transversus arch (conjoined tendon) to the shelv­ing edge of the IL using interrupted sutures. This became known as the “modied Bassini repair,” but recurrences were closer to 10–15% because of the modication. For direct and femoral her­nias, Lotheissen, of Austria, and later Anson and McVay, in the United States, popularized an ana­tomic repair that required opening the oor and approximating the transversus arch to CL, but this also created signicant tension. In 1946, Edward Earle Shouldice, of Toronto, used Bassini’s original concept and developed the Shouldice operation [6]. This complex technique requires a “thinning” of the cord by dividing the lesser cord, including the genital branch of the genitofemoral nerve (GFN) and external sper­matic vessels and a multilayered closure of the oor with stainless steel wire—the failure rate was reduced to less than 2% for primary hernias and to 8% for recurrent hernias. The problem with the Shouldice operation is the difculty of the procedure and the lengthy “learning curve”— general surgeons could not learn the procedure and produce the same results as the experts.
Suturing the transversus arch to the inguinal ligament creates tension at the suture line, a fea­ture of the Bassini operation and all other suture repairs that is disadvantageous. Even with relax­ing incisions to reduce suture line tension, patients who had suture repairs still experienced a high level of postoperative pain and unaccept­able failure rates as well as prolonged disability and chronic pain in up to 10% of patients [7]. Failures from suture repairs were common in both the medial and lateral triangles and often occurred years later as the muscles and fascia weakened with time, so short-term follow-up was not sufcient to detect many of the recurrences.
29.4 Anterior Mesh Repairs
In the early 1980s, surgeons, concerned about the unacceptably high incidence of hernia repair fail­ures, began to evaluate the use of nylon mesh products for hernia repairs. Tension-free tech-
niques were proposed to reduce recurrences and postoperative pain. In 1960, Usher, from Texas, had reported suturing a polyethylene mesh inlay patch deep to the transversalis fascia to do a “ten­sion-eliminating” inguinal hernia repair [8]. Dr. Irving Lichtenstein popularized the tension-free Lichtenstein repair (LCHT) using a polypropyl­ene patch on the outside of the internal oblique muscle, sutured with permanent sutures to the IL and absorbable sutures on the upper edge [9]. This is the most common hernia repair technique used worldwide, to which all other hernia tech­niques are compared. Surgeons have proposed modications of the LCHT technique, mostly by using different xation methods with glue or self­gripping mesh products, but the basic principles of the repair are sound [10, 11]. Failures follow­ing mesh repairs present more commonly in the lateral triangle where the internal ring opening is too large, or by blowout of the oor medially with the mesh detaching along with the weak­ened oor, or rarely under the mesh as interstitial hernias. These usually become clinically evident within 2years. The reason for failure following mesh repair is that the mesh did not cover the entire MPO, including the femoral triangle, leav­ing the unprotected areas vulnerable. For larger hernias, xation is critical for prevention of recurrence as the mesh can be pushed out with the oor as it weakens with repeated stress—it is clear that an anterior patch acts as a lid, not a “stopper.”
29.5 Preperitoneal Retro­muscular Repairs
Rene Stoppa described the repair of bilateral large groin hernias by widely wrapping the peritoneal base with large mesh netting (giant preperitoneal reinforcement of the visceral sac—GPRVS), thereby blocking the viscera from entering any defect in the MPO [12]. After visiting and operat­ing with Stoppa in Amiens, Gilbert was convinced that the ideal place to position mesh is in the PP space, between the force of the hernia and the defect in the abdominal wall. In the 1980s, he borrowed Lichtenstein’s idea of creating a rolled plug and used it to repair indirect inguinal hernias.
288
J. Young and A. I. Gilbert
The intact indirect sac was dissected and pushed inward, and a hand-rolled mesh plug was placed into the internal ring to block the hernia opening. To complement this, a at mesh patch was used to reinforce the rest of the oor of the inguinal canal—the “plug and patch” technique (P&P) which was popularized by Rutkow and Robbins. This worked well, but the plug was annoyingly palpable and painful in some patients. To avoid these problems, and to protect a wider area, Gilbert described his sutureless “umbrella” tech­nique in 1989 [13]. Using the deep inguinal ring hernia opening as the window of entry to the pre­peritoneal space, he placed the mesh behind the muscle layers, unrolling it like opening an umbrella, allowing it to become seated on the inside of the anterior abdominal wall (Fig.29.3). It literally blocked the peritoneal sac and its con­tents from protruding through the defect. When the patient’s intra-abdominal force was applied against the mesh, it held the patch in place and fortied the area covered (Pascal’s principle). This sutureless technique proved satisfactory, pro­viding a lasting repair, but only for small- and medium-sized indirect hernias. However, it was sometimes difcult to fully deploy the mesh, and some failures resulted from incomplete coverage or lack of xation of the mesh, especially for large hernias. This concept of placing mesh behind the muscles is the basis for other “posterior” repairs including those of Nyhus and Kugel, as well as laparoscopic (LAP) repairs. It is also the basis for
the PHS repair, and the recently described “ONSTEP” technique [14].
29.6 Bilayer Repair: TheProlene
®
Hernia System
In 1997, Gilbert, with a personal experience of thousands of hernia repairs, accepted the task of designing a mesh product for Ethicon, Inc. (Johnson & Johnson) that was suitable to repair all types of groin hernia and would meet all the crite­ria for the ideal hernia repair: ease of use, repro­ducibility, low cost, few recurrences, and decreased post-op and chronic pain. He designed the Prolene Hernia System®—a polypropylene bilayer-con­nected mesh device used to repair all types of direct and indirect inguinal and femoral hernias through an open approach. The system has three components: a at round underlay, an elongated oval-shaped overlay, and a 1.5cm round connector that joins these in the center (Fig.29.4). It is a stan­dard weight polypropylene—80 g/cm. There are three sizes—medium, large, and extra large. The PHS is symmetrical in the longitudinal axis so can be used on either the right or left side. The mesh is designed so that the surgeon is able to modify it to suit the needs of the specic patient by trimming it according to the type and size of the hernia. In the early 2000s, there was some discussion of using lighter weight products for inguinal hernia repair, balancing the anticipated decreased inam­matory response from the mesh against the pos­sible increased rate of recurrence because the mesh was not strong enough. A lighter weight offshoot of the PHS, the Ultrapro® Hernia System
(PHS-UHS)
Fig. 29.3 Umbrella PP technique Fig. 29.4 Prolene Hernia System
29 Gilbert Technique: PHS Bilayer Repair
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
Fig. 29.5 Ultrapro Hernia System
289
tions. The patient is advised to shower the evening before and on the morning of surgery using a parachlorometaxylenol-impregnated sponge and not to shave the surgical site. In the pre-op suite, the patient is identied, and the surgical site is conrmed and marked by the surgeon prior to administration of any sedative. Any hair at the operative site is clipped just prior to the surgery. A single dose of 1–2g of cefazolin (or 600mg of clindamycin for penicillin or cephalosporin aller­gic patients) is administered within 30 min of incision time.
(UHS) was developed, with an overlay of a soft lightweight partially absorbable product and an underlay that is “stiffened” by an absorbable ele­ment that dissolves over several days (Fig.29.5). We found the stiff underlay difcult to deploy in comparison with the PHS, and there have been no studies with evidence that it improves outcomes compared to PHS.
29.7 Preoperative Evaluation andPlanning
When the diagnosis is in question after the routine history and physical, a groin and testicular ultra­sound examination is helpful for small or recur­rent hernias, or patients with testicular complaints, to determine the location of the hernia, to check for multiple defects, and to document testicular anatomy and blood ow [15]. A “hernia-specic” informed consent is signed in the ofce and sent to the surgery center to become a part of the record, in addition to the blanket consent provided at the center. A medical evaluation and clearance is requested when indicated. All medications and supplements that may potentially affect coagula­tion are stopped 3–7 days before surgery. Some patients require a short-acting subcutaneous anti­coagulant for the immediate pre-op and post-op period, depending on the reason for anticoagula­tion, as determined by the medical consultant. All other medications are continued up until midnight before surgery or taken with a sip of water the morning of surgery, except for diabetic medica-
29.8 Operative Venue, Preparation, andAnesthesia
Most primary and recurrent inguinal hernia repairs are done as an outpatient in an ambulatory surgery center or in a hospital setting and are dis­charged the same day. Our preferred anesthesia is intravenous sedation with local—heavier patients or some patients with airway problems may require a laryngeal airway. General endotracheal anesthesia is rarely used, and we do not use an epidural or spinal. The goal is to avoid prolonged stay in the outpatient department and to reduce the incidence of post-op urinary retention. Versed® (Midazolam), propofol® (Diprivan), and Sublimaze® (fentanyl) are administered by an anesthesiologist as needed before and during the surgery. The skin of the lower abdomen is prepared with Betadine Hibiclens® (chlorhexidine gluconate). Prior to commencing, a “time-out” is initiated by the sur­geon to identify all operating room personnel, the patient, date of birth, the marked operative site and procedure, and allergies.
Depending on the weight of the patient, we use up to 60 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with 1/200,000 epinephrine injected as we proceed. Communication with the anesthesia personnel is helpful as they can increase sedation at different points during the procedure. The initial injection is in the sub-dermis and dermis and then the Scarpa’s fascia. After identifying the external oblique aponeurosis, 20–25mL more of the local anesthetic is injected by “ooding” the plane
®
(povidone iodine) or
290
J. Young and A. I. Gilbert
below the external oblique—no attempt is made to “block” the nerves by direct injection as this may cause nerve injury that can lead to neuropa­thy. Additional local is injected in the deeper lay­ers near the ilio-pubic tract and the pubic tubercle as needed. In some cases, if we need the patient to cough, anesthesia can lighten the sedation and temporarily allow us to communicate with the patient. This method of local anesthesia inltra­tion allows for reduced pain in the post-anesthe­sia care unit and for one or more hours after the surgery, so the patient does not awaken with severe pain and it is easier for the patient to void. If available, a long-acting local anesthetic, Exparel® (bupivacaine liposomal injectable solu­tion), is injected prior to closure—this can reduce pain for 2–3days after surgery.
29.9 Steps inBilayer Repair
There are ve parts to a hernia repair with the PHS: (1) incision and exposure, (2) preparation of the anterior space, (3) dissection of the poste­rior space, (4) deployment of the underlay, and (5) application and xation of the overlay.
29.9.1 Incision andExposure
A 3–5cm transverse incision extending laterally from the pubic tubercle and 1–2 cm above the inguinal ligament is marked. Approximately 20mL of the anesthetic solution is injected into the skin and subcutaneous tissue including the Scarpa’s fascia. The skin is incised, and the sub­cutaneous layer is opened. The supercial epi­gastric vessels are retracted, or ligated and divided, and Scarpa’s fascia opened. The subcu­taneous tissues are cleared from the external oblique aponeurosis (EOA), exposing the exter­nal ring. Care is taken not to stretch or otherwise damage the ilioinguinal nerve as it exits the exter­nal ring with the cord structures. At this time, examination is performed to rule out the presence of a femoral hernia by incising the cribriform fas­cia at the junction of the thigh. As soon as the EOA is exposed, 20 to 25 mL of anesthetic
solution is inltrated just beneath it—we use two or three puncture sites to ood the area, avoiding direct injection into the nerves. This helps to sep­arate the nerves from the undersurface of the EOA and aids in the dissection.
29.9.2 Preparation oftheAnterior
Space
The preparation of the anterior space and appli­cation of the overlay patch are similar to the tech­nique that we use when we perform a LCHT procedure. The EOA is opened in the direction of its bers through the external ring. Its medial ap is elevated and separated from the internal oblique (IO) muscle and aponeurosis, avoiding the iliohypogastric nerve (IHN). The IHN, ilioin­guinal nerve (IIN), and genital branch of the gen­itofemoral nerve (GFN) are identied and left undisturbed within their investing fascia. The nerves are not dissected or retracted to “protect” them. If a nerve is involved with scarring from the hernia or prior surgery, or the location inter­feres with the repair, or will be under tension by the mesh, the nerve is removed by dividing it, dissecting it proximally, and ligating with a Vicryl tie. It is allowed to retract or implanted into the muscle, not unlike when doing a neurec­tomy. This “pragmatic” neurectomy is done to avoid neuroma formation and minimize develop­ment of neuropathic pain. The anterior space dissection is carried out laterally 3–5cm beyond the internal ring. The lateral ap of the EOA is then elevated with careful dissection inferomedi­ally toward Gimbernat’s ligament and the pubic tubercle (PT).
The cord structures, including the cremaster muscles and the lesser cord, are elevated from the oor of the inguinal canal beginning near the PT—this is done medial to any direct hernia. They are encircled with a Penrose drain, and an arch-shaped opening is created for the overlay of the mesh. In patients with large hernias, reduc­tion of the hernia contents at this juncture may facilitate elevation of the cord structures. The arch is created by careful dissection elevating the lateral cremaster muscles and the “lesser cord”
29 Gilbert Technique: PHS Bilayer Repair
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
291
from the oor and the shelving edge of the IL, limiting trauma to the GFN and the lateral cre­master vessels, which are left undisturbed. This method of elevating the cord structures favors limiting dissection of the vas deferens within the internal spermatic fascia. We prefer this method as opposed to elevating the spermatic cord and testicular vessels and leaving the lateral cremas­ter muscles and vessels and the GFN attached to the oor.
29.9.3 Management ofIndirect Hernia Sac andLipoma
After the cord contents are elevated, the cremas­ter muscle is opened 1–2 cm from the internal ring to check for an indirect sac, which is usually on the anterior medial side of the cord. If a sac is identied, after conrming that there is no bowel present, a small opening can be made to examine and reduce the contents, to check for a sliding component where the bowel or mesentery forms the wall of the sac, and to see if the sac extends into the scrotum. If the sac does not extend beyond the external ring, it can be removed with care dissecting it away from the spermatic cord to which it can be intimately attached. If the sac extends into the scrotum, our approach is to divide the sac by transecting it 2cm above the transversus abdominis (TA) muscle, where it is suture ligated and reduced into the PP space. If the lateral hernia is small, we do not make the opening larger in order to place the PHS through it, avoiding further dissection along the cord and GFN internally. Instead, we prefer to insert it through an opening made in the medial triangle.
If there is a sliding component, the mesentery and outside portion of the hernia is dissected away from the spermatic cord and vessels which lay inferior to it. The PP “true yellow fat” which is a deep yellow color can be identied inferior to the TA just lateral to the deep epigastric vessels. The opening in the sac is closed with a purse­string suture, and the entire hernia contents with the sliding component are reduced into the PP space. Cord lipomas can be dissected from the surrounding structures and suture ligated at the
neck near the deep inguinal ring and resected. In some cases, larger masses of PP fat can be reduced and kept behind the underlay of the mesh. Interstitial fat in close continuity with the testicular vessels is left intact because of the risk of cord edema and inammation along the cord which could restrict venous return from the tes­ticle and lead to cord or testicular edema.
29.9.4 Dissection ofthePosterior Space
The PP space of Bogros must be generously opened to allow the mesh to be fully deployed, no different than is done for other open or LAP repairs. This space behind the MPO is in fact more conical than at in nature, so the underlay should not be expected to lie at but more like a cone (Fig. 29.6). The space is relatively at behind the TA in the upper portion. However, inferiorly, below the inguinal ligament, it goes posteriorly to pass behind the ilio-pubic tract and CL on the medial side; behind the femoral lym­phatics, femoral vein, and artery in the center portion; and behind the spermatic cord and tes­ticular vessels laterally.
29.9.4.1 Medial (Direct) Hernias
The oor of the medial triangle is opened making sure to go through both layers of the transversalis fascia (TF) until the “true yellow fat” is seen as it bulges out (Fig.29.7). The edges of the TF are
Fig. 29.6 Conical shape of MPO
Соседние файлы в папке @xirurgi_2025