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
292
Fig. 29.7 PP “true yellow fat”
Fig. 29.8 Sponge dissection of PP space
grasped with hemostats, and the protruding con­tents are dissected from behind the fascia with an opened dry 4×4 gauze sponge, to actuate the PP space. The sponge’s traction on the PP fat helps to separate it from the TF supercial to it (Fig.29.8) . This can also be done by sweeping the index nger or with forceps and cautery. The dissection goes medially behind the PT, inferi­orly behind CL, superiorly behind the TA, and laterally behind the deep epigastric vessels. The space is essentially avascular, except for small branches of the ilio-pubic vein which runs trans­versely along the ilio-pubic tract and CL.If the patient has no lateral defect, we limit the lateral dissection behind the epigastrics at this point, preferring not to place mesh along the spermatic cord internally, potentially avoiding scarring in that area. We rely on the overlay to protect the oor lateral to the internal ring.
J. Young and A. I. Gilbert
29.9.4.2 Lateral (Indirect) Hernias
Once the entire sac or ligated sac has been fully dissected, it is grasped with forceps and invagi­nated through the internal ring. The surgeon’s forenger is inserted through the internal ring adjacent to the forceps and palpates the iliac artery, pulsating lateral to it. The forceps are extracted, leaving the forenger in place, hook­ing it under the TA laterally. An opened dry 4×4 sponge is passed on the medial side of the fore­nger to develop the PP space and separate the hernia contents from the elements of the cord. We prefer creating this space with the sponge, but it is also possible to do it with the index nger alone or forceps and cautery. The sponge is tem­porarily left in place to maintain the passageway and facilitate continuing the insertion maneuver. Medially, we dissect behind the deep epigastric vessels and under the oor of the medial trian­gle—an army-navy retractor placed behind the epigastric vessels facilitates this dissection. The dissection is extended further medially behind the PT, inferiorly behind CL, and superiorly behind the TA. Superiorly and laterally to the internal ring, the dissection is behind the TA, and inferiorly between the hernia contents and the cord contents. This result is that the lateral and medial PP space is connected as one. For small lateral hernias, we prefer not to enlarge the inter­nal ring opening. The mesh can be inserted through an opening in the medial triangle, and the indirect space can be covered by the overlay.
In some cases of pantaloon hernias with large openings in both the medial and lateral triangle, the TF is opened both medial and lateral to the epigastrics, a Penrose drain is placed around the epigastric vessels, (or the vessels can be ligated and divided) and the two spaces are joined. This facilitates insertion and deployment of the underlay.
29.9.5 Deployment ofUnderlay
The PHS overlay tails are pulled up and “triple­folded” longitudinally and then grasped with a sponge stick near the connector, creating an appearance of a “taco” in the underlay (Fig.29.9). This allows easy visualization and deployment of
29 Gilbert Technique: PHS Bilayer Repair
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
Fig. 29.9 Triple fold with trimmed underlay
293
dissected structures—medially behind the PT, inferiorly behind CL, superiorly behind the TA, and laterally behind the deep epigastric vessels. Successful deployment can be conrmed by the tip of the nger. The underlay will have some radial folds to accommodate the conical shape of the space—it will not be at, but trimming will reduce these folds and prevent it from having the effect of a plug. If there is no signicant indirect hernia, the underlay can be trimmed laterally where it will be placed behind the epigastric ves­sels, thereby avoiding dissection along the cord and vessels and having the cord lay against the mesh. The oor lateral to the epigastrics will be protected by the overlay. The opening in the TF of the medial triangle is closed snugly around the connector with one or two gure-of-eight absorb­able sutures, leaving it comfortably seated (Fig.29.12). If there is a femoral hernia, prior to
Fig. 29.10 Insertion of PHS
the underlay after insertion. The underlay is trimmed to t into the space created by the dis­section allowing it to lay close to the undersur­face of the oor without folding and penetrating deeper like a plug (Fig.29.9). The sponge stick is rotated before insertion to line up the overlay with the inguinal ligament. The device is inserted until the perimeter of the underlay is beneath the oor (Fig. 29.10). For inguinal hernias, sutures are not necessary in the underlay—the intra­abdominal pressure pushes the mesh against the oor and holds it in place.
For medial hernias, the device is inserted straight down, at a right angle to the opening. The edge of the underlay patch is deployed by unroll­ing the perimeter of the mesh from its connector using the forenger, as the overlay component isgently extracted (Fig.29.11). The edges of the underlay are placed behind the previously
Fig. 29.11 Deployment of underlay
Fig. 29.12 Closure of TF
294
inserting the device, a single 2–0 Prolene suture can be placed to secure the underlay to CL.
For lateral hernias, we usually trim the underlay on the inferior and superior side prior to insertion, to make an oval shape that will t into the dissected space. The surgeon’s forenger is placed under the lateral aspect of TA through the opened internal ring, and the device is slid down the medial side of the nger into the PP space— the direction of insertion is superior and lateral, aiming toward the shoulder. The perimeter of the underlay is placed behind the TA superiorly and laterally, while medially it is deployed behind the epigastric vessels and the PT. Inferiorly the perimeter is directed more posterior, covering the femoral canal and the tissues behind CL, and it separates the hernia contents from the cord con­tents. Typically, when repairing a lateral hernia, unless it is a three-nger defect or larger, the internal oblique is not tightened around the connector—the obliqueness of the internal ring offers additional protection to the underlay patch. Effectiveness of the underlay patch alone can be evaluated by having the patient cough and per­form the Valsalva maneuver before the overlay is deployed. After the operation, when the patient stands, intra-abdominal pressure that attens the underlay is against the abdominal wall between the peritoneum and the TF.
J. Young and A. I. Gilbert
Fig. 29.13 Medial xation suture
Fig. 29.14 Slit with “T” for cord
29.9.6 PHS Overlay Placement
andFixation
Using the sponge stick, the overlay is extracted to the level of the internal oblique (IO) and released, and the tips are pulled apart to a at shape. The overlay is laid at over the transversus arch with the medial end positioned 1–2 cm over the PT where it is sutured above and medial to the PT to the rectus aponeurosis with a 2–0 Vicryl (Fig.29.13). A slit must be cut in the overlay to allow the cord contents to pass through. One option is in the inferior edge of the overlay at the internal ring, near the connector, adjacent to the midportion of the internal ring, with a “T” to make it larger (Fig.29.14). The cord structures are passed through the slit, and the edges of the
Fig. 29.15 Slit suture to shelving edge of IL
slit are sutured to the shelving edge of the ingui­nal ligament (Fig. 29.15). Another option is an overlay slit from the lateral edge toward the
29 Gilbert Technique: PHS Bilayer Repair
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
295
Polymyxin® solution. The EOA is closed with a 2–0 Vicryl® running suture, beginning at the inter­nal ring, being careful not to make it too tight, anticipating that some swelling of the cord struc­tures will occur. It is not necessary to re-create the external ring. The subcutaneous layer is closed with 3-0 Vicryl® sutures, and the skin with a sub­cuticular 3-0 Vicryl Rapide® suture. The skin is covered with Dermabond® or Steristrips®.
29.9.7 Post-op Care
Fig. 29.16 Overlay application
connector favoring the inferior edge and adding a small keyhole near the connector. The tails are then wrapped around the cord contents, not unlike a LCHT patch, and sutured together with a Vicryl suture—it is not necessary to suture these to the inguinal ligament. The opening should be large enough to comfortably accommodate the spermatic cord and its contents without compres­sion. An absorbable suture can be placed to secure the upper edge of the overlay to the IO at the middle of the transversus arch (using an air knot and avoiding the IH-N) and one at the mid­dle of the inguinal ligament if the surgeon feels it is necessary. It is not necessary to suture the lat­eral part of the overlay that lies at in the anterior space where it is covered by the EOA.The over­lay should be trimmed on the inferior edges later­ally and medially if any excess is noted where the mesh might fold on itself, especially in thin patients (Fig.29.16).
For large hernias and recurrent hernias, 2–0 Prolene sutures can be used to secure the mesh medially and to anchor the slits to the shelving edge of the inguinal ligament. Additional sutures can be placed at the surgeon’s discretion, but we do not recommend nonabsorbable sutures on the upper edge of the mesh. On occasion, for very large hernias with a complete blowout of the oor, bilayer sutures are placed that go through both layers with the oor in between.
The cord contents with the II-N are replaced on top of the overlay medially in the inguinal canal. All layers are irrigated with Bacitracin
®
-
Most patients go directly to the outpatient dis­charge area or to the recovery room if they are too sleepy or need monitoring. An ice bag is applied immediately and is used for 2days. After void­ing, the patient leaves the ambulatory center, usu­ally 45–90min after the operation. The patient is encouraged to ambulate often (if not light­headed) on the day of surgery and to resume all activities that are not uncomfortable. Milk of magnesia is recommended if the patient has not had a bowel movement by the second day. Patients are told that they will have some ecchy­mosis around the incision and into the scrotum and often some testicular swelling that will last for several days. Swelling in the wound forms a rm wound healing ridge that lasts 6–8 weeks. As the healing ridge becomes more prominent, it narrows and rises before it attens. Patients are told to expect mild to moderate pain, sometimes going down to the testicle, for 1–2 days, after which the pain diminishes signicantly. All patients are given a prescription for an NSAID such as naproxen (if there is no history of GERD) and a narcotic analgesic such as oxycodone and acetaminophen. Patients who live locally are seen in 1–2weeks for follow-up. Out-of-town patients are seen on the day after surgery and are followed by telephone in 1week regarding their progress.
29.10 Results
April 1998 through December 2016, ve sur­geons doing only hernia surgery used the PHS to repair over 12,000 groin hernias in over 11,000
296
J. Young and A. I. Gilbert
patients at the Hernia Institute of Florida. Male patients outnumbered female patients 15:1. Simultaneous bilateral repairs were done in 10%. One in eight repairs was for recurrences of one to six times. Femoral hernias accounted for 1.5% and were more common in women. Our PHS size preference is 60% extended, 35% large, and 5% medium—mostly in women. Follow-up for all hernia patients is very difcult as there is no national registry. Most patients who are doing well do not want to take time to come in for a checkup. All patients are given the surgeon’s cell phone number. Our telephone and email follow­up showed a 30% compliance. All patients, including those covered under workers’ compen­sation, were emphatically instructed to call or return if they suspected a recurrence or were bothered by unrelenting discomfort. Most of our patients call if they have a problem.
To the best of our knowledge, the total number of known recurrences in our series since April 1998 is 34. In our ofce, where we have done between 400 and 800 PHS repairs per year, we see 1–2 patients of our own per year who have a recurrence. If we assume there are two or three times as many recurrences that we are not aware of, our percentage is well below one half percent, a gure that we use in the pre-op discussion. Other surgeons using PHS have reported similar low recurrence rates [16].
Supercial infection, hematoma, or serous drainage, which required opening the wound, occurred in 40 patients—these were managed with topical and oral antibiotics—the patients were instructed to shower and change dressings twice daily, and most of these healed within 10–14 days. Infection requiring mesh removal occurred in four patients—the mesh was removed, and a suture repair was done with a monolament absorbable suture. Two patients had MRSA—one with a prior history in another location and one who was an unidentied carrier. We currently ask patients about MRSA history prior to all hernia repairs. In all other cases, infections were supercial, and the mesh did not have to be removed to get complete wound heal­ing. There were 8 hematomas that required drainage—2in the OR, and 60 documented sero-
mas, of which 10 persisted and required aspiration.
Thirty percent of patients used only acetamin­ophen for pain. The remainder used the pre­scribed NSAID or narcotic, on the average taking four narcotic tablets over 2days. Ninety-ve per­cent used no analgesics after the rst 2 days. Most patients with ongoing discomfort were given naproxen. Ten percent of workers had ongoing pain that lasted between 3 and 6months. One hundred twenty patients had chronic pain, i.e., pain more than 6 months after surgery. Twelve patients, including eight workers, had signicant chronic postoperative pain lasting lon­ger than 6 months and were referred for pain management. Two patients had the mesh removed for pain by us, and a third had the mesh removed by a surgeon elsewhere. Patients who experi­enced some degree of testicular pain from epi­didymitis were treated with sitz baths, naproxen, and Cipro®—all reported that the pain subsided in 3 to 8weeks.
29.11 Quality ofLife Issues
As recurrence rates after hernia surgery have been reduced with the use of mesh techniques, increased attention has been directed to quality of life (QOL) issues, particularly the problem of chronic post-herniorrhaphy inguinal pain (CPIP), a consequence occurring in many patients after hernia surgery. Symptoms of somatic, visceral, and neuropathic pain, as well as testicular pain, dysejaculation, and claims of sterility, have stim­ulated considerable evaluation and discussion at surgical meetings and in the literature, and dis­cussions on the Internet are readily available to patients—these are often confusing and mislead­ing. Almost all patients who present to the ofce in the past 5years come with questions related to CPIP and the use of mesh. It is important to dis­cuss these with the patient to make sure they understand the risks and benets of mesh place­ment as part of the informed consent process.
We explain that post-op pain problems are a known consequence of hernia surgery, in part related to the scarring which occurs in both non-
29 Gilbert Technique: PHS Bilayer Repair
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
297
mesh and mesh repair. The percentage of patients complaining of CPIP varies according to the methodology and denition of chronic pain—it ranges from 0.6 to 30% in different studies, but for severe chronic pain affecting the activities of daily living, it is 0.5–6% [17]. However, Cunningham had reported that the incidence of signicant CPIP in patients after suture repairs without mesh is around 10% [7].
The use of mesh results in immediate strength of the repair. In addition, the mesh induces an inammatory reaction and scarring, making the repair stronger as the scar creates a plate of tis­sue. This inammatory reaction may affect struc­tures which are in direct apposition to the mesh, a situation that is present in all types of hernia repairs. Lateral to the internal ring, the mesh is placed on top of the IO, and unavoidably comes into contact with the IIN and IHN, which may result in inammation and scarring involving these structures. In routine hernia repairs, nerves, muscle, the spermatic cord, and all structures in the inguinal canal may come in contact with the mesh. This is true in open anterior repairs or open PP or LAP repairs.
There have been suggestions that the incidence of CPIP can be reduced by following recom­mended surgical technique. These include avoid­ing nerve trauma by blunt dissection, traction, and electrocautery; limiting dissection close to the spermatic cord to reduce scarring that may result in cord dysfunction, obstruction, and possible injury to the nerves and vessels that are present in the adventitia of the vas; avoiding placement of mesh in direct opposition to the vas when possi­ble; using absorbable sutures with air knots and placing sutures in the IO away from visible nerves; dividing a long indirect sac near the inter­nal ring and avoid dissecting near the spermatic cord distally; and avoiding placement of sutures into the periosteum of the PT [18]. Over the years, we have modied our surgical technique to limit dissection in the area of the nerves and the sper­matic cord to attempt to reduce the incidence of these problems. In addition, “watchful waiting”— conservative management of asymptomatic her­nias—is an acceptable course of management in the appropriate patient [19].
29.12 Selection ofTechnique: Tailored Repair
To perform lasting groin hernia repairs, surgeons must have a stronger appreciation for the tech­niques available to protect the entire MPO.Patients have different anatomy, and their hernia problems differ by size and location. Some patients may be more susceptible to recurrence because of age, occupation, activities, body habi­tus, collagen disorders, and smoking. Although a single technique can be used to repair all differ­ent types and sizes of inguinal hernias, the choice of procedure for an individual patient should be based on the anatomical ndings and the type of defect, the needs of the patient, and the expertise of the surgeon with the technique being used. Some techniques are easier to perform, but may not offer as good results. The success of the pro­cedure will ultimately depend on the skill of the surgeon—both in choosing the correct procedure and performing it.
Since its inception in 1985, over 30,000 ingui­nal hernias have been repaired by surgeons at the Hernia Institute of Florida. Our selection and modication of technique has evolved over the years based on technological advances and results. Initial procedures were classical Bassini or McVay suture repairs. The major change occurred in the 1980s with the popularization of mesh techniques, including the umbrella plug, plug and patch, and LCHT repairs. In 1998, the PHS was designed and became our primary her­nia repair technique, with over 8000 repairs done between 1998 and 2008 with a recurrence rate of less than 0.5%. With the success in prevention of recurrences achieved, and more attention given to patient satisfaction and CPIP, our focus has been to modify our technique selection according to the needs of the patient. Since 2006, the LCHT technique using middle weight mesh has been used in 10–15% of our cases, with equivalent recurrence rates, but there has been no decrease in the incidence of post-op pain. We do not use ultralight-weight mesh products because we feel they are not strong enough for many of our patients. In patients with a high risk for recur­rence, we use a sandwich technique with
298
J. Young and A. I. Gilbert
“bilayer” Prolene sutures passed through both mesh layers and the fascia in between. Some new products and xation techniques have been tried for LCHT where suture xation of the mesh to the inguinal ligament is necessary, but this is irrelevant for PHS which is held in place by the synergy of the bilayer design, without any perma­nent sutures.
Not all surgeons have the benet of the experi­ence with large numbers of repairs with different techniques. The surgeon’s choice of technique should depend on their personal experience and ability as well as the needs of the patient.
29.13 Discussion
There have been several studies reporting results of PHS repairs compared to other mesh tech­niques. Recurrence rates for PHS are equal to or lower than any other hernia repair technique, and QOL outcomes are favorable when compared to other mesh or suture techniques. Kingsnorth compared PHS to the Lichtenstein technique and reported less postoperative pain, earlier return to normal activities and work, shorter duration of operation, and fewer recurrences in the PHS group [20]. General surgeons trained in the PHS technique by Hernia Institute instructors have been able to reproduce our own results. In 2006, in a report of 21,791 PHS repairs by 42 trained general surgeons, there were only 28 recurrences, for a failure rate of 0.0013 [21]. Some RCT and meta-analyses included in the 2014 update of the EHS guideline compare the efcacy and safety of PHS and LCHT and P&P techniques. With fol­low-up in the range of 1–4years, there was no difference between PHS and LCHT with regard to recurrence, CPIP, or other complications [22]. While PHS requires entry to the PP space, LCHT requires permanent sutures which may contribute to pain.
However, in 2015, Cox and Heniford et al. reported on an international, prospective, multi­center study of 1341 patients comparing recur­rence and QOL outcomes of PHS, LCHT, and P&P repairs. The techniques had equal recur­rence rates, while the variance between the most
common techniques appears to be QOL [23]. LCHT and P&P demonstrated equal short- and long-term QOL.The PHS repair showed superior 1month and 2year QOL outcomes compared to LCHT and P&P. At 1 month and 2 years, PHS patients had less pain, less mesh sensation, and activity limitation, compared to LCHT and P&P.
Although there are many different hernia repair techniques available, we preferentially use PHS for our repairs unless the patient’s needs direct us to other techniques. The PHS repair satises all of the desired qualities of the ideal hernia repair. Results are reproducible by all surgeons after a very short learning curve. Surgeons inexperienced with dissection of the PP space learn very quickly to become comfortable working in this relatively avascular space and can achieve high success rates equivalent to our outcomes.
References
1. Fruchaud H. Textbook: anatomie chirurgicale des
hernies de l'aine. Paris: Doin; 1956.
2. Gilbert AI.The lateral triangle of the groin. Hernia.
2000;4:234–7.
3. Alexandre JH.The story of EHS-GREPA 1979–2014.
Hernia. 2015;19:349–54.
4. Gilbert AI, Graham MF, Voigt WJ. A bilayer
patch device for inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 1999;3:161–6.
5. Bassini E. Sulla cura radicale dell’ernia inguinale.
Arch Soc Ital Chir. 1887;4:380.
6. Bendavid R.The Shouldice repair. In: Fitzgibbons RJ,
Greenburg G, editors. Hernia. 5th ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 2009. p.129–38.
7. Cunningham J.Cooperative hernia sturdy: pain in the
postrepair patient. Ann Surg. 1996;224:598–602.
8. Usher F, Fries J, Oschner JL. Clinical studies. Arch
Surg. 1959;78:138–45.
9. Lichtenstein IL, Shulman AG.Ambulatory outpatient
hernia surgery. Including a new concept, introducing tension-free repair. Int Surg. 1986;71(1):1–4.
10. Campanelli G, Pascual MH, Hoeferlin A, et al.
Randomized, controlled, blinded trial of Tisseel/ Tissucol for mesh xation in patients undergoing Lichtenstein technique for primary inguinal her­nia repair: results of the TIMELI trial. Ann Surg. 2012;255(4):650–7.
11. Rönkä K, Vironen J, Kössi J, etal. Randomized mul-
ticenter trial comparing glue xation, self-gripping mesh, and suture xation of mesh in Lichtenstein hernia repair (FinnMesh study). Ann Surg. 2015;262(5):714–9; discussion 719–20.
29 Gilbert Technique: PHS Bilayer Repair
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
299
12. Stoppa RE. The midline preperitoneal approach and prosthetic repair of groin hernias. In: Fitzgibbons Jr RJ, Greenburg AG, editors. Nyhus and Condon’s hernia. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002. p.199.
13. Gilbert AI.Sutureless repair of inguinal hernia. Am J Surg. 1989;157:331–5.
14. Rosenberg J, Andresen K.Onstep—open new simpli­ed totally extraperitoneal technique for inguinal her­nia repair. In: Campanelli G, editor. Inguinal hernia surgery. NewYork, NY: Springer; 2016.
15. Young J, Gilbert AI, Graham MF. The use of ultra­sound in the diagnosis of abdominal wall hernias. Hernia. 2007;11:347–51.
16. Gilbert AI, Young J, Graham MF. Combined ante­rior and posterior inguinal hernia repair: intermedi­ate recurrence rates with three groups of surgeons. Hernia. 2004;8(3):203–7.
17. Poobalan AS, Bruce J, Smith WC, etal. A review of chronic pain after inguinal herniorrhaphy. Clin J Pain. 2003;19:48.
18. Aleri S, Amid PK, Campanelli G, etal. International guidelines for prevention and management of post-
operative chronic pain following inguinal hernia sur­gery. Hernia. 2011;15(3):239–49.
19. Fitzgibbons R, et al. Watchful waiting vs repair of inguinal hernia in minimally symptomatic men—a ran­domized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;295(3):285–92.
20. Kingsnorth A, Wright D, Porter CS, et al. Prolene Hernia System compared with Lichtenstein patch: a randomised double blind study of short-term and medium-term outcomes in primary inguinal hernia repair. Hernia. 2002;6:113–9.
21. Gilbert A, Graham M, Young J, et al. Closer to an ideal solution for inguinal hernia repair: compari­son between general surgeons and hernia specialists. Hernia. 2006;10:162–8.
22. 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(2):151–63.
23. Cox TC, Heniford BT, etal. International, prospective comparison of open inguinal hernia repair techniques: two-year quality of life (QOL) and recurrence out­comes in more than 1300 patients. JACS. 2015;4:S72.
Open New Simplied Totally Extraperitoneal (ONSTEP) Technique forInguinal Hernia Repair
JacobRosenberg andKristoerAndresen
30
30.1 Introduction
The ONSTEP technique for inguinal hernia repair was developed by two surgeons from Portugal, Lorenzo and da Costa [1]. For several years there has been a trend toward placing the mesh in the preperitoneal space rather than below the external aponeurosis as in the Lichtenstein repair. The reason for this has been reports of reduced pain after surgery, especially levels of chronic pain, with the preperitoneal mesh replacement as in laparoscopic repair [2].
There are several different operative tech­niques available for preperitoneal mesh replace­ment including the transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) approach [3] and transrectus sheath extra­peritoneal procedure (TREPP) [4] and others, but these techniques may be difcult to approach for the novice surgeon. Thus, Lorenzo and da Costa thought that there was a need for a new method with a technically easier approach and therefore a shorter learning curve for the young surgeons.
The present status for the ONSTEP technique is that it is currently used in several surgical departments, and there are also a few ongoing research projects evaluating the technique [5, 6]. Currently, the technique has only been spread to some countries in Europe, mainly because the
J. Rosenberg (*) · K. Andresen Department of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Denmark e-mail: jacob.rosenberg@regionh.dk
mesh has not been available in the United States until recently. Surgeons in the United States and Asia will soon be exposed to this new technique, hopefully resulting in more scientic trials evalu­ating the pros and cons.
The aim of the present chapter is to introduce the ONSTEP technique and give an overview of the current available clinical data. Furthermore, we discuss the technique’s perspectives and the possible future role of ONSTEP in inguinal her­nia repair in adults.
30.2 The ONSTEP Technique
The ONSTEP technique is special because it involves both the preperitoneal space as well as the space between the external and internal aponeuro­sis. Thus, it can be seen as a mixture of a preperi­toneal technique and a fully external approach [1]. Because of space limitations, the reader is kindly referred to a detailed description of the operative technique published previously [1].
30.2.1 Why aTechnique Involves Two
Dierent Planes
An intriguing part of this surgical technique is that it involves two different planes. The medial part of the mesh is placed in the preperitoneal space, the space of Retzius, and the lateral part of the mesh is placed between the internal and external
© 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_30
301
302
Данная книга находится в списке для перевода на русский язык сайта https://meduniver.com/
J. Rosenberg and K. Andresen
aponeurosis, i.e., the same place as we place the mesh in the conventional Lichtenstein repair. The mesh is not sutured to tissue, and this special mesh placement will ensure that it stays in place even though it is not xated to the body structures. This special mesh placement also has the special effect that it will grab the abdominal wall, espe­cially when the patient is standing up, where grav­ity will put force on a at mesh placed simultaneously between the external and internal aponeurosis (lateral part) as well as a mesh placed in the preperitoneal space (medial part). In the ONSTEP technique, the mesh has a kind of a handgrip shape holding the abdominal wall and thereby keeping the hernias in place. This may be the mechanism of action of the ONSTEP tech­nique and could explain the low-recurrence rates and, together with the lack of mesh xation and the very gentle dissection technique, probably explain the extremely low risk of chronic pain [7].
30.2.2 The Onex Mesh
A special mesh has been designed for the ONSTEP operation (Fig. 30.1). This mesh is called the Onex mesh. It has a stiff ring along the border of the mesh in order to keep it deployed in the preperitoneal space. The ring is made of absorbable material so that it will not cause con-
cern for the patient. Before the Onex mesh was available, we used the Polysoft mesh for the ONSTEP operation. This mesh has a nonabsorb­able ring, so that skinny patients could sometimes feel it and had pain from especially the lateral part of the mesh which lies between the external and internal oblique aponeurosis. If the patient is skinny and has the Onex mesh in the correct position, then even though he or she may feel the lateral part of the ring in the beginning, these complaints will disappear when the ring is absorbed. The mesh is made of polypropylene and is low-weight, with large pore sizes. This should enable better ingrowth in the healing period after mesh placement. Furthermore, it has a pocket which will make it easier to position the mesh in the preperitoneal space. When the mesh is positioned, the pocket is meant for the index nger of the surgeon.
30.2.3 Pain fromtheRecoil Ring
There are thousands of patients who have had the ONSTEP procedure with the Polysoft mesh. In the Polysoft mesh, the ring is nonabsorbable, and if the patient is skinny, there may be complaints from the lateral part of the mesh where the ring will lie close to the skin. In such a case, we usu­ally recommend that the patients should wait for 6months in order for the mesh to be fully inte­grated into the tissue, especially in the preperito­neal position and on the muscle plate between the two aponeuroses. Then the patient is offered a small reoperation where an incision of about 1cm is performed on top of the palpable part of the ring corresponding to the lateral part of the mesh. Then the two ends of the ring are dissected and cut, and the ring can be withdrawn in full. We have made a video clip of this procedure [8]. Usually after ring removal, the patient will have no complaints.
30.2.4 Recurrence Repair After
Previous ONSTEP
Fig. 30.1 The Onex mesh for ONSTEP inguinal hernia
repair. Reproduced with permission from Bard-Davol Inc
Some surgeons may have concern about how to repair a recurrence after previous ONSTEP
Соседние файлы в папке @xirurgi_2025