Добавил:
Sekretar
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 / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_874_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Contents
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Ancient Past
- •1.3 Modern Period
- •1.4 Robot
- •1.5 Contemporary Period
- •1.6 Healthcare Robotics
- •1.9 Robotic-Assisted Surgery Logistics
- •1.10 Future Directions
- •1.7 Twenty-First Century
- •1.8 Hernia Repair
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 Advantages
- •2.3 Disadvantages/Barriers
- •2.4 Training Requirements
- •2.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •3: Enhanced Recovery After Hernia Repair
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 Pre-Operative Measurements
- •3.2.1 Smoking Cessation
- •3.2.2 Weight Loss
- •3.2.3 Diabetes Optimization
- •3.2.4 Nutritional Optimization
- •3.2.5 Prehabilitation
- •3.3 Intra-operative Measures
- •3.3.2 Perioperative Antibiotics
- •3.3.3 Surgical-Site Infections (SSI)
- •3.3.4 Improving Postoperative Intestinal Function
- •3.4 Post-operative Measures
- •3.4.2 Multimodal Pain Control
- •3.4.3 Early Enteral Feeding
- •3.5 Discussion
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.3 Prosthetic Materials: History
- •4.4 Absorbable Synthetic Biomaterials
- •4.5 Biologic Products
- •4.5.1 Bovine Products
- •4.5.2 Cadaveric Products
- •4.5.3 Porcine Products
- •4.6 Hybrid Products
- •4.7 Flat Prosthetic Products
- •4.8 Miscellaneous Flat Products
- •4.9 Combination Flat Synthetic Prosthetics
- •4.14 Hiatal Hernia Repair Products
- •4.15 Fixation Devices
- •4.16 Conclusion
- •References
- •5.1 Inguinal Hernia
- •5.1.2 Inguinal Preoperative Imaging
- •5.1.3 Operative Approach
- •5.1.4 Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Repairs
- •5.1.5 Bilateral Hernias
- •5.1.6 Obesity
- •5.1.7 Anticoagulated Patients
- •5.1.8 Medical Comorbidities
- •5.1.9 Women
- •5.1.10 Femoral Hernias
- •5.1.11 Preperitoneal Mesh/Lower Midline Surgery
- •5.1.12 Scrotal/Nonreducible Hernia
- •5.1.13 Summary
- •5.1.14 Ventral/Incisional Hernia
- •5.1.16 Preoperative Imaging
- •5.1.17 Prehabilitation
- •5.1.18 Operative Approach
- •5.1.19 Mesh Utilization
- •5.2 Conclusion
- •References
- •6.1 Background
- •6.2 Pain Classification
- •6.3 Anatomic Considerations
- •6.7 Chronic Pain After Ventral Hernia Repair
- •6.8 Chronic Pain After Inguinal Hernia Repair
- •6.10 Open Extended Triple Neurectomy
- •6.11 Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Triple Neurectomy
- •6.12 Chronic Orchialgia
- •6.14 Conclusion
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.3 The Robotic Equipment
- •7.4.1 Patient Positioning
- •7.4.2 Cannulas
- •7.4.3 Robot Docking
- •7.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •8.6 Controversies
- •8.6.1 Direct Hernia Defect Closure
- •8.6.2 Mesh Fixation
- •8.6.3 Non-Mesh Robotic TAPP Repairs
- •8.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •8: Routine Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 Patient Selection
- •8.3 Surgical Technique
- •8.3.2 Dissection
- •8.3.3 Mesh Placement
- •8.3.4 Peritoneal Closure
- •8.4 Recovery
- •8.5 Adverse Events
- •8.5.1 Small Bowel Obstruction
- •8.5.2 Recurrence
- •8.5.3 Chronic Pain
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 History
- •9.3 Pre-operative Preparation
- •9.4 Operative Techniques
- •9.6 Summary
- •References
- •10: Pelvic Hernias
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.2 Technique
- •10.5 Docking
- •10.6 Surgical Technique
- •10.7 Dissection/Adhesiolysis
- •10.8 Defect Closure
- •10.10 Complications
- •10.12 Summary
- •10.13 Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •Glossary
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.4 Other
- •11.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •12: Re-operation After Robotic Inguinal Hernia Repair
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.6.1 Open Repair
- •12.6.2 Laparoscopic Repair
- •12.6.3 Robotic Repair
- •12.7 Special Considerations
- •12.8 Conclusions
- •References
- •13: Botulinum Toxin Aided Hernia Repair
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.3 Existing Clinical Applications
- •13.5.1 Anatomy
- •13.5.2 Our Technique
- •13.6.4 Other Uses
- •13.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •14: Pneumoperitoneum Aided Hernia Repair
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.1.1 Preoperation Treatment Options
- •14.2 Progressive Preoperative Pneumoperitoneum (PPP)
- •14.2.4 PPP Protocol
- •14.3 Surgical Repair: Minimally Invasive
- •14.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.2 Patient Selection
- •15.5 Port Placement
- •15.6 Intraoperative Considerations
- •15.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •16.2 Operative Technique
- •16.2.2 Access
- •16.2.3 Port Placement
- •16.2.5 Upper Midline Defects (Lower Dock Setup)
- •16.2.6 Lower Midline Defects (Upper Dock Setup)
- •16.2.7 Side Dock Setup
- •16.2.8 Conclusion
- •17: Robotic IPOM-Plus Repair
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.2 Definition
- •17.3 Surgical Technique
- •17.3.1 Preoperative Care
- •17.3.2 Patient Positioning
- •17.3.3 Trocar Placement
- •17.3.4 Docking
- •17.3.5 Instrumentation
- •17.3.6 Adhesiolysis
- •17.4 Postoperative Care
- •17.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •18: Transabdominal Preperitoneal (rTAPP) Repair
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Surgical Anatomy
- •18.4 Patient Selection
- •18.5 Preoperative Evaluation
- •18.6 Equipment
- •18.7 Surgical Technique
- •18.7.2 Trocar Placement, Adhesiolysis, Preperitoneal Dissection
- •18.8 Postoperative Care
- •18.9 Complications
- •18.9.1 Bleeding-Hematoma
- •18.9.2 Seroma
- •18.9.3 Intestinal Injury
- •18.9.4 Chronic Pain
- •18.9.5 Recurrence
- •18.10 Limitations
- •18.11 Conclusion
- •References
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Background
- •19.3 History
- •19.4 Pre-Operative Workup
- •19.6 Surgical Technique
- •19.6.1 Access
- •19.6.2 Port Placement
- •19.6.3 Dissection/Adhesiolysis
- •19.6.5 Midline Reconstruction
- •19.7 Complications
- •19.9 Discussion
- •19.10 Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •Glossary
- •20: Endoscopic Component Separation Techniques
- •20.1 Endoscopic Component Separation Techniques
- •20.4 Operative Steps
- •20.4.1 Preoperative Preparation
- •20.5 Operative Technique
- •20.5.1 Transfascial Approach
- •20.5.2 Modified Subfascial Approach
- •20.5.3 Endoscopic Subcutaneous CS Approach
- •20.8 Conclusions
- •References
- •21: Robotic Retro-Rectus Repairs
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 Robotic Rives: Retromuscular Repairs
- •21.2.1 Patient Selection
- •21.2.2 General Measures
- •21.2.3 Single Docking: Cranial Approach
- •21.2.4 Double Docking: Lateral Approach
- •21.2.5 Single Docking: Lateral Approach
- •21.3 e-TEP
- •21.3.3 Upper Midline Defect
- •21.3.4 Lower Midline Defects
- •21.3.5 Side-Docking
- •21.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •22: Robotic Transversus Abdominus Release
- •22.1 Introduction
- •22.2 Historical Context
- •22.2.3 The Rives-Stoppa Repair
- •22.2.4 Posterior Component Separation
- •22.2.6 Minimally Invasive Approaches
- •22.2.7 Operative Considerations
- •22.2.8 Patient Selection
- •22.3 Pre-Operative Planning
- •22.4 Technique
- •22.4.3 Trocar Placement
- •22.4.4 Docking
- •22.4.5 Retromuscular Dissection
- •22.4.6 Transversus Abdominis Release
- •22.4.8 Contralateral Dissection
- •22.4.9 Fascial Closure
- •22.4.11 Post-Operative Care
- •22.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •23.1 Introduction
- •23.2 Operating Room Set Up
- •23.3 Surgical Technique
- •23.4 Postoperative Care
- •23.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •24: Lumbar Hernia
- •24.1 Introduction
- •24.1.1 Historical Background
- •24.1.2 Classifications
- •24.1.3 Surgical Anatomy
- •24.1.4 Pathogenesis
- •24.1.5 Clinical Presentation
- •24.2 Preoperative Planning
- •24.3 Operative Technique
- •24.3.1 Open Approach
- •24.3.2 Mimimally Invasive Approach
- •24.3.2.1 Conventional Laparoscopy
- •24.3.2.2 Robotic Assisted
- •24.3.3 Hybrid Approach
- •24.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •25.1 Background
- •25.3 Preoperative Considerations
- •25.4 Operating Room Set Up
- •25.5.2 Transversus Abdominis Release (TAR)
- •25.5.4 Mesh Placement
- •25.6 Postoperative Management of Modified Sugarbaker with TAR
- •25.7 Complications
- •25.8 Traditional Sugarbaker Repair
- •25.8.1 Operating Room Set Up
- •25.9 Postoperative Management
- •25.10 Conclusion
- •References
- •References
- •27.2 Obesity
- •27.3 Malnutrition
- •27.4 Immunosuppression
- •27.5 Age
- •27.6 Special Considerations: Cytoreductive Surgery
- •27.7 Future Thoughts
- •References
- •28.1 Morgagni Hernia
- •28.1.1 Si
- •28.1.2 Xi
- •28.2 Bochdalek Hernia
- •28.2.1 Si
- •28.2.2 Xi
- •28.3 Traumatic Diaphragmatic Hernia
- •28.4 Summary
- •References
- •29: Robotic Assisted Morgagni Hernia Repair
- •29.1 Introduction
- •29.2 Preoperative Evaluation
- •29.3 Patient Selection
- •29.6 Intraoperative Considerations
- •29.7 Recommended Instruments
- •29.8 Postoperative Care
- •29.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •30: Robotic Paraesophageal Hernia Repair
- •30.1 Introduction
- •30.2 Preoperative Evaluation
- •30.2.1 Upper Endoscopy
- •30.2.2 Barium Swallow
- •30.2.3 High Resolution Esophageal Manometry
- •30.2.4 pH Monitoring
- •30.3 Operative Technique
- •30.3.1 Operating Room (OR) Setup
- •30.3.2 Patient Positioning
- •30.3.3 Trocar Placement
- •30.3.4 Docking
- •30.3.5 Visualization
- •30.3.7 Esophageal Lengthening
- •30.3.8 Crural Closure
- •30.3.9 Relaxing Incisions
- •30.3.10 Fundoplication
- •30.3.11 Mesh Reinforcement
- •30.4 Peri-Operative Complications
- •30.4.1 Pneumothorax
- •30.4.2 Vagal Injury
- •30.4.3 Esophageal Perforation
- •30.4.4 Gastric Perforation
- •30.4.5 Bleeding
- •30.4.6 Dysphagia
- •30.4.7 Reflux
- •30.5 Outcomes
- •30.6 Reoperative Considerations
- •30.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •31.1 Introduction
- •31.2 Surgical Indications
- •31.3 Preoperative Evaluation
- •31.4 Surgical Technique
- •31.5 Postoperative Care
- •31.6 Outcomes
- •31.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •32.4 Organ Perforation
- •32.6 Postoperative In-hospital Complications
- •32.7 Late Complications
- •32.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •33: Reoperation After Robotic Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair
- •33.1 Introduction
- •33.6 Open Repair
- •33.7 Laparoscopic Repair
- •33.8 Robotic Repair
- •33.9 Conclusions
- •References
- •Index

13 Botulinum Toxin Aided Hernia Repair
15. Novitsky YW, Elliott HL, Orenstein SB, Rosen MJ.Transversus abdominis muscle release: a
novel approach to posterior component separation during complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg. 2012;204(5):709–16.
16. Caldironi MW, Romano M, Bozza F, etal. Progressive pneumoperitoneum in the management
of giant incisional hernias: a study of 41 patients. Br J Surg. 1990;77(3):306–7.
17. Dumont F, Fuks D, Verhaeghe P, etal. Progressive pneumoperitoneum increases the length of
abdominal muscles. Hernia. 2009;13(2):183–7.
18. Admire AA, Dolich MO, Sisley AC, Samimi KJ.Massive ventral hernias: role of tissue expan-
sion in abdominal wall restoration following abdominal compartment syndrome. Am Surg.
2002;68(5):491–6.
19. Ibarra-Hurtado TR, Nuño-Guzmán CM, Echeagaray-Herrera JE, Robles-Vélez E, de Jesús
González-Jaime J.Use of botulinum toxin type a before abdominal wall hernia reconstruction.
World J Surg. 2009;33(12):2553–6.
20. Jankovic J. Botulinum toxin : therapeutic clinical practice and science. Philadelphia, PA:
Saunders/Elsevier; 2009.
21. Cakmak M, Caglayan F, Somuncu S, etal. Effect of paralysis of the abdominal wall mus-
cles by botulinum a toxin to intraabdominal pressure: an experimental study. J Pediatr Surg.
2006;41(4):821–5.
22. Elstner KE, Read JW, Rodriguez-Acevedo O, etal. Preoperative chemical component relax-
ation using botulinum toxin a: enabling laparoscopic repair of complex ventral hernia. Surg
Endosc. 2017;31(2):761–8.
23. Elstner KE, Read JW, Rodriguez-Acevedo O, Ho-Shon K, Magnussen J, Ibrahim
N.Preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum complementing chemical component relaxation in complex ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(4):1914–22.
24. Rodriguez-Acevedo O, Elstner KE, Jacombs ASW, et al. Preoperative botulinum toxin
a enabling defect closure and laparoscopic repair of complex ventral hernia. Surg Endosc.
2018;32(2):831–9.
25. Farooque F, Jacombs AS, Roussos E, et al. Preoperative abdominal muscle elonga-
tion with botulinum toxin a for complex incisional ventral hernia repair. ANZ J Surg.
2016;86(1–2):79–83.
26. Ibarra-Hurtado TR, Nuño-Guzmán CM, Miranda-Díaz AG, Troyo-Sanromán R, Navarro-
Ibarra R, Bravo-Cuéllar L.Effect of botulinum toxin type a in lateral abdominal wall muscles
thickness and length of patients with midline incisional hernia secondary to open abdomen
management. Hernia. 2014;18(5):647–52.
27. Elstner KE, Read JW, Jacombs ASW, et al. Single port component separation: endoscopic
external oblique release for complex ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(5):2474–9.
28. Weissler JM, Lanni MA, Tecce MG, Carney MJ, Shubinets V, Fischer JP.Chemical component
separation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of botulinum toxin for management of ventral hernia. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017;51(5):366–74.
29. Bueno-Lledó J, Torregrosa A, Ballester N, etal. Preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum
and botulinum toxin type a in patients with large incisional hernia. Hernia. 2017;21(2):233–43.
30. Bueno-Lledó J, Torregrosa Gallud A, Jiménez Rosellón R, etal. Preoperative preparation of
“loss of domain” hernia. Progressive pneumoperitoneum and botulinum toxin type a. Cir Esp.
2017;95(5):245–53.
31. Zendejas B, Khasawneh MA, Srvantstyan B, Jenkins DH, Schiller HJ, Zielinski MD.Outcomes
of chemical component paralysis using botulinum toxin for incisional hernia repairs. World J
Surg. 2013;37(12):2830–7.
32. Zielinski MD, Goussous N, Schiller HJ, Jenkins D.Chemical components separation with
botulinum toxin a: a novel technique to improve primary fascial closure rates of the open abdomen. Hernia. 2013;17(1):101–7.
33. Zielinski MD, Kuntz M, Zhang X, et al. Botulinum toxin A-induced paralysis of the lateral
abdominal wall after damage-control laparotomy: a multi-institutional, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80(2):237–42.
241

242
34. Brown SH, McGill SM.Transmission of muscularly generated force and stiffness between
layers of the rat abdominal wall. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(2):E70–5.
35. Lien SC, Hu Y, Wollstein A, etal. Contraction of abdominal wall muscles inuences size and
occurrence of incisional hernia. Surgery. 2015;158(1):278–88.
36. Durham PL, Cady R. Regulation of calcitonin gene-related peptide secretion from trigemi-
nal nerve cells by botulinum toxin type a: implications for migraine therapy. Headache.
2004;44(1):35–42; discussion 42–33
37. Göbel H, Heinze A, Reichel G, Hefter H, Benecke R, Dysport myofascial pain study group.
Efcacy and safety of a single botulinum type a toxin complex treatment (Dysport) for the
relief of upper back myofascial pain syndrome: results from a randomized double-blind
placebo- controlled multicentre study. Pain. 2006;125(1–2):82–8.
38. Childers MK, Wilson DJ, Gnatz SM, Conway RR, Sherman AK.Botulinum toxin type a use
in piriformis muscle syndrome: a pilot study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81(10):751–9.
39. Perez D, Wildi S, Demartines N, Bramkamp M, Koehler C, Clavien PA.Prospective evaluation
of vacuum-assisted closure in abdominal compartment syndrome and severe abdominal sepsis.
J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205(4):586–92.
40. Smoot D, Zielinski M, Jenkins D, Schiller H. Botox a injection for pain after laparoscopic
ventral hernia: a case report. Pain Med. 2011;12(7):1121–3.
41. Oliveira LT, Essu FF, de Mesquita GHA, etal. Component separation of abdominal wall with
intraoperative botulinum a presents satisfactory outcomes in large incisional hernias: a case
report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2017;41:99–104.
42. Weum S, de Weerd L.Perforator-guided drug injection in the treatment of abdominal wall
pain. Pain Med. 2016;17(7):1229–32.
43. Dressler D, Adib Saberi F, Bigalke H. IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin(®)) can pro-
duce antibody- induced therapy failure in a patient pretreated with abobotulinumtoxinA
(Dysport(®)). J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2014;121(7):769–71.
T. Tejirian and L. Yeung

Pneumoperitoneum Aided Hernia Repair
YohannRenard, CheryneHammoutene,
andJean-PierrePalot
14.1 Introduction
Most incisional hernias are classied according to the size of the hernia defect, in
particular to their width [1–3] and not by the difculties in reduction of the herniated content. However, some of them, 5% in our experience [4], cannot be restored
into the abdominal cavity. These giant incisional hernias with loss of domain (IHLD)
imply that a proportion of the abdominal content, 20% according to Kingsnorth [5],
lls permanently the extraperitoneal hernia sac [6, 7], thereby leading to a “second
abdominal cavity” [8] (Fig.14.1).
Recently, a group of expert surgeons has proposed loss of intra-abdominal
domain as a common criterion to dene a complex ventral hernia [9]. In case of
IHLD, the massive visceral protrusion presents a major therapeutic challenge due to
the difculty to restore the volume of the herniated content into the abdomen and
complete closure of the abdominal wall myofascial layers [10, 11]. Further, IHLD
development is associated with lateral wall shortening and oblique muscle atrophy
with decreased extensibility and compliance [12]. The replacement of the viscera
within an unyielding and stiff abdominal wall may compromise the perfusion of the
intestines, elevate the diaphragm [13] and may lead to subsequent intra-abdominal
hypertension [14]. This situation may induce acute pulmonary complications and
even a postoperative abdominal compartment syndrome [15–17].
14
Y. Renard (*) · C. Hammoutene · J.-P. Palot
Department of General, Digestive and Endocrine Surgery, Robert-Debre University Hospital,
University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
K. A. LeBlanc (ed.), Robotic Assisted Hernia Repair,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23025-8_14
243

244
Fig. 14.1 Example of giant incisional hernias with loss of domain (IHLD), leading to a real “second abdominal cavity”
Y. Renard et al.
14.1.1 Preoperation Treatment Options
Several techniques have been described to increase the abdominal cavity volume
[18], including tissue expanders, botulinum toxin, component separation techniques
(CST) and progressive preoperative pneumoperitoneum (PPP).
The different component separation techniques (CST) are extensively reported
and well described for the surgical treatment of IHLD [19–28] and are rapidly
becoming the technique of choice in complex ventral hernia repair, even sometimes
considered as a standard for the repair of all midline incisional hernias [25, 29–31].
The rst technique described was anterior CST, reported by Ramirez etal. [32, 33].
In this technique, the external oblique muscle aponeurosis is sectioned near the
semilunar line, allowing advancement of the composite ap of the ipsilateral rectus
muscle medially to the midline. More recently, Novitsky etal. [19] described the
transversus abdominis release (TAR). This technique consists in an extension of the
Rives-Stoppa technique where the transversus abdominis muscle insertion is sectioned near the semilunar line, allowing the creation of a plane laterally between the
transversus abdominis muscle and the transversalis fascia. The TAR, also called
“perforator preserving CST” [29], is a safe alternative to the posterior component
separation described by Carbonell et al. [20] where the lateral plane is created
between the internal oblique and the transversus abdominis muscle, thus affecting
the abdominal perforator nerves and vessels.

14 Pneumoperitoneum Aided Hernia Repair
245
Anterior CST seems more able than the TAR to achieve the objective of closure
of the midline since it allows an advancement of the rectus muscle medially up to
10cm in length on both sides [32]. It has also been shown to increase the abdominal
cavity volume by an average of 7% [13]. Of note, however, comparable outcomes of
TAR and anterior CST have been reported in meta-analysis [30].
Nevertheless, anterior CST requires the lateral dissection of the subcutaneous
space, leading to an increased risk devascularized skin aps and impairment of the
wound healing process with the subsequent risk of skin necrosis [24]. Further, both
the anterior CST and TAR signicantly alter the normal anatomy of the abdominal
wall since these methods intentionally disrupt the integrity of the musculofascial
components of the abdominal wall [13]. These factors may explain why CST is
associated with a rate of wound complications as great as 26–42% and a recurrence
rate up to 30% in large series [11, 19, 20, 34].
14.2 Progressive Preoperative Pneumoperitoneum (PPP)
First described in 1947 by Moreno [35], PPP represents an interesting alternative for
surgical repair of IHLD without permanent alteration of the musculo-aponeurotic
integrity of the abdominal wall [4]. It involves the progressive insufation of the
abdominal cavity. Prior to the surgical repair of IHLD.This is undertaken with the
purpose of the complete reduction of the hernia content without division of any
muscle or its associated aponeuroses, thus achieving a reduction of the postoperative complication rate [4, 18, 36, 37].
Contrary to CST, PPP involves a long preoperative preparation of the patients
before IHLD repair, also called “Goni Moreno protocol”. Indeed, we think that the
preparation of these patients, including careful pulmonary, cardiac and anesthesiologic evaluations, as well as appropriate skin preparation, is essential and should be,
in fact, as crucial as the operation itself [4, 27, 36].
This technique has been used for a long time by specialized teams [38–45] but is
still not extensively performed in the majority of hospitals. Nevertheless, specialized teams have reported good results with acceptable risk rate [4, 11, 36, 44, 46,
47]. Even if their series included limited number of patients [4, 11, 48], they have
recently published objective data. However, no recommendation has been published
until now about the indication of PPP, neither the precise protocol nor the method of
repair.
14.2.1 Prior Evaluation oftheLoss ofDomain
The indication of PPP is usually based on clinical examination, ie, any incisional
hernia that could not be reduced on physical exam [4, 44]. Nevertheless, it is sometimes difcult to clinically estimate the exact size of the incisional hernia, due to
bowel adhesion or obesity [4]. Preoperative CT measurements of hernia defect sizes
and abdominal wall thickness is mandatory for all complex incisional hernia [49].

246
Y. Renard et al.
In addition, in case of IHLD, preoperative CT-scan, with valsalva maneuver whenever possible, allows objective measures of the volume of the incisional hernia.
Tanaka etal. [47] were the rst team to report an objective method to calculate the
exteriorized volume of the abdominal content on CT-scan. The hernia sac volume
(VIH) and the abdominal cavity volume (VAC) were approximated by using their
diameter within the three planes of space and using the mathematical formula of an
ellipse (4/3×π×r1×r2×r3), considering the shape of the two abdominal compart-
ments as elliptic (Fig. 14.2). Using the Archimedes theory in the rat model, the
efciency of this method has been validated [50]. The exact VIH and VAC are now
routinely calculated directly on CT-scan using volumetric software, as it is performed for hepatic volumetry (Fig.14.3). The volume of the peritoneal cavity is
calculated as the sum of VAC+VIH.The ratio of the volume of the hernia content
was calculated according to the ratio VIH/(VAC+VIH), representing 45% on the
specic example in Fig.14.3.
a
b
cde
Fig. 14.2 Method to calculate VIH and VAC according to Tanaka on CT-scan (a, b) from a patient
with median IHLD (c, d). VIH=4/3×π×a×b×c. VAC=4/3×π×A×B×C. (e) Result after
PPP and surgery

14 Pneumoperitoneum Aided Hernia Repair
aceg
247
b
dfh
ijk
Fig. 14.3 CT volumetric measurements before PPP (a, b: Axial CT slide; c, d: Sagittal CT slice)
in a patient presenting with a median giant IHLD (i, j). The VIH was measured at 3820mL.The
VAC was measured at 4653mL.The ratio of the exteriorized visceral volume was calculated at
45% in this patient before surgery. CT volumetric measurements after progressive preoperative
pneumoperitoneum and before surgery (e, f: Axial CT slide; g, h: Sagittal CT slice). The VAC was
measured at 6951mL which represented a mean VAC increase of 49%. (k) Results 6months after
surgery
14.2.2 Is There aPercentage ofHerniated Volume fromWhich
aPPP Is Indicated?
This exact determination is not clearly dened. Tanaka et al. [47] suggested that
PPP should be performed when the ratio was at least 25%. Kingsnorth etal. [5]
considered that a respiratory prehabilitation (smoking cessation, respiratory adaptation with intensive respiratory physiotherapy) should be performed in patients with
a ratio of 15–20%. However, abdominal volumetry was not performed in the latter
study. We consider that a IHLD with an exteriorized ratio of 20% should be prepared using PPP since recent prospective studies have shown that an exteriorized
volume <20% of the entire peritoneal volume was predictive of a relative

248
Y. Renard et al.
tension- free fascia closure and was associated with less postoperative pulmonary
complications [9, 48, 51].
14.2.3 Objectives ofthePPP
PPP has many potential and/or theoretical advantages [4, 18, 36, 37], including:
– The progressive distension of the lateral abdominal wall muscle will enlarge the
abdominal cavity and allow the complete reduction of the herniated content and
subsequent ability to close the defect completely.
– The PPP will cause progressive abdominal hypertension thereby resulting in dia-
phragmatic rehabilitation before surgery to improve ventilatory function. In
other words, this can act as a pre-operative respiratory tolerance test. Some
authors argue that PPP should be contraindicated in patients suffering from car-
diac and pulmonary insufciency without evidence-based data [38, 52–55]. In
our experience, this pre-operative test will allow a surgical repair for patients
with high comorbidities, without cardiac or respiratory failure [4].
– The resultant increase in the volume of the abdominal cavity can allow the com-
plete reduction of the herniated organs without alteration of the abdominal wall
(i.e. no CST necessary).
– The consequent pneumatic dissection of visceral adhesions facilitates the
required dissection during the operation.
14.2.4 PPP Protocol
PPP can be either performed by repetitive percutaneous punctures with a Palmer
needle under local anesthesia or with a percutaneous catheter implanted into the
peritoneal cavity [4, 36, 43, 52, 56–58]. The use of a permanent catheter facilitates
the entire process until the surgical intervention, but leads to the increased risk of
infection of the catheter that may delay the operation for several months if this
occurs. Repeated punctures lead to less infection rate but increase the risk of perforation of any of the contents of the abdominal cavity. Mougin published a complication rate of 20% during the PPP procedure [59]. The majority of these were minor
events, without difference between the use of a catheter or repetitive puncture. More
recently, catheter placement under ultrasound or CT-scan guidance has been
described, which may provide better control over localization but requires good,
available and motivated radiologists [60].
Each PPP procedure consists in the injection of ambient air into the peritoneal cavity through a microporous antibacterial lter after skin disinfection (Fig.14.4a–d). A
3-way valve attached to a 60ml syringe is a very effective and accurate method to
inltrate the air into the abdominal cavity. The procedure should be repeated every
1–3days for 15–30days. The volume of air injection during each procedure (500–
2000ml) and the duration of the entire procedure will depend upon the volume of the

a
ce
14 Pneumoperitoneum Aided Hernia Repair
249
bd f
Fig. 14.4 PPP procedure using iterative puncture with a palmer needle. (a) Skin disinfection. (b)
Local anesthesia. (c) Insertion of the palmer needle. (d) Insufations of the cavity with ambient air.
(e) Plain abdominal X-Ray showing the pneumoperitoneum under the diaphragm. (f) From the rst
session and until the day of the operation, all patients are equipped with an abdominal belt
VIH [47] and patient tolerance to each instillation. This will be manifested by either
scapular or abdominal pain and/or dyspnea which can limit the amount of air and/or
result in the need for administration of an analgesic agent [4].
After the initial procedure, a plain abdominal x-ray should be performed to check
the presence of a pneumoperitoneum indicated by free air under both hemidiaphragms. (Fig.14.4e). During the PPP and until the day of the operation, all patients
should be equipped with an abdominal belt for active respiratory therapy in attempt
to tolerate the progressive abdominal hypertension and to increase the respiratory
capacity (Fig.14.4f). In case of any dermatologic or septic skin condition, every
attempt was made using detergent and antiseptic topical agents to eradicate and
prevent further infectious complications. This can oftimes be avoided the use of skin
lubricants or creams on the abdominal skin.
The protocol should include prophylactic subcutaneous anticoagulation starting at the time of the rst PPP; the prophylactic dose may need to be increased in
cases of obesity [4]. The administration of a broad spectrum antibiotic therapy
should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis [36]. The rst two or three procedures
can be performed during conventional hospitalization to evaluate the initial tolerance to PPP [42, 61] but the subsequent ones can be performed in a outpatient
surgery setting [4].
To the best of our knowledge, there is no consensus published regarding the
quantity of air to insufate, nor the length of time for this preparation. Some argue
that the PPP should be stopped when excessive abdominal tension is observed [35,
41, 58]. Tanaka etal. insufated the volume equivalent to the VIH calculated on
pre-operative CT-scan [47] whereas Bueno-Lledo etal. insufated three times this

250
Y. Renard et al.
volume in consideration that, at least, some of the injected air is partially resorbed
[36]. The preparation time varies greatly among the series published, ranging from
4 to 64 days, allowing the nal insufation total volume to range from 1400 to
38,000cc (Table14.1). Future studies are needed to clarify this precise aspect of the
method. Regardless, once the selected time or volume has been achieved it is generally recommended that a new CT-scan is performed so that calculations of the new
volumetry and hernia size after the procedure can be calculated. This should be
done before surgery to verify the signicant and sufcient increase of the VAC [4,
36, 41, 44, 46, 47].
14.2.5 Efficacy ofPPP
As noted above, the pre-operative CT-scan allows calculation of objective data
regarding the efcacy of the PPP [4, 36, 44, 46]. Dumont etal. [46] have reported
an increase of the length of the right and left anterolateral muscles by an average of
83mm on each side. Most importantly, the efcacy of PPP might be assessed by the
increase of the VAC, by comparing pre- and post-PPP CT-scan volumetries, which
might also be predictive of the success of the hernia repair. Sabbagh etal. [44, 48]
and our team [4] reported an increase of the VAC by 22% and 53% respectively.
These objective data may explain that PPP can lead to the spontaneous reduction of
the herniated viscera, as shown on the post-PPP CT-scan (Figs.14.3e and 14.5). For
comparative purposes, the increase of VAC has also been reported after anterior
CST in two series of 19 and 10 patients: the mean increase of VAC was 6% and
10%, respectively, which appears modest compared to PPP results.
Individual and pooled data of the three main studies that reported the volumetric
results and efcacy of PPP in patients with giant IHLD are reported in Table14.2
[4, 44, 47].
14.3 Surgical Repair: Minimally Invasive
To the best of our knowledge, no recommendation can be performed to date about
the surgical technique. For an incisional hernia repair, the retromuscular sublay procedure (Rives-Stoppa), has been demonstrated by several authors to have a lower
recurrence rate (3–7%) and is considered by many to be the gold standard technique
[68]. For this reason, we advise this technique for the repair of an IHLD whenever
possible [4].
To date, large series reporting minimally invasive approach of IHLD repair has
not been published yet. It has been recently shown that transabdominal preperitoneal repair (TAPP), intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) or posterior CST can be
easily accomplished using robotic surgery [69]. Nevertheless, application of laparoscopic or robotic ventral hernia repair is often limited by hernia morphology [70].
We argue that a minimally invasive repair of IHLD does not allow the complete
closure of the defect to be guaranteed. If this cannot be accomplished there will be
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
