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

22 Robotic Transversus Abdominus Release
367
separation. This technique allowed for reconstruction of the linea alba with massive
overlap of mesh resulting in a durable repair. However, these repairs are far from
minimally invasive and carry with them all of the problems which minimally invasive surgeons have sought to minimize (wound complications, pain, long hospital
stays etc.)
Recently there is increasing data that we can accomplish complex abdominal
wall reconstructions utilizing the robot as an enabling technology. Certainly, the
robotic transversus abdominus release as described above is technically feasible,
and there are increasing data that patients at the very least have decreased lengths of
stay when compared to their open counterparts. We nd that our patients are also
requiring less pain medications, and seem to have a lower wound complication rate,
though denitive study of all of these issues is ongoing. Patient selection is however
important, and those with massive loss of domain, or those with large amounts of
skin which will likely need resection upon reapproximation of the muscles are
likely better served by an open technique.
Finally, as a minimally invasive surgeons it is certainly exciting to see the robot
allow for these complex reconstructions in a less invasive manner, and we look forward to continuing renement and evolution of technique, as well as robust outcomes analysis to validate the true value of these efforts.
Acknowledgements Dr. Jacobsen has received honoraria from W.L. Gore and Associates to pro-
vide educational training of their products. Additionally, W.L. Gore and Associates provides nancial support for the Minimally Invasive Surgery Fellowship that Dr. Jacobsen is an instructor. One
of the products made by W. L. Gore and Associates was reviewed in this invited article. Dr.
Bernstein has no nancial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this
manuscript.
References
1. Gibson CL.Post-operative intestinal obstruction. Ann Surg. 1916;63:442–51.
2. Halvorson EG.On the origins of components separation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(5):1545–
9. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b98ab8.
3. Ramirez OM, Ruas E, Dellon AL. “Components separation” method for closure of abdominal-
wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;86(3):519–26.
4. Switzer NJ, Dykstra MA, Gill RS, Lim S, Lester E, de Gara C, Shi X, Birch DW, Karmali
S.Endoscopic versus open component separation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg
Endosc. 2015;29(4):787–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3741-1.
5. Tong WM, Hope W, Overby DW, Hultman CS. Comparison of outcome after mesh-only
repair, laparoscopic component separation, and open component separation. Ann Plast Surg.
2011;66(5):551–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e31820b3c91.
6. Deerenberg EB, Timmermans L, Hogerzeil DP, Slieker JC, Eilers PH, Jeekel J, etal. A sys-
tematic review of the surgical treatment of large incisional hernia. Hernia. 2015;19(1):89–101.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1321-x.
7. Holihan JL, Askenasy EP, Greenberg JA, Keith JN, Martindale RG, Roth JS, Mo J, Ko TC, Kao
LS, Liang MK, Ventral Hernia Outcome Collaboration Writing Group. Component separa-
tion vs. bridged repair for large ventral hernias: a multi-institutional risk-adjusted comparison,
systematic review, and meta-analysis. Surg Infect. 2016;17(1):17–26. https://doi.org/10.1089/
sur.2015.124.

368
8. Rives J, Lardennois B, Pire JC, Hibon J.Large incisional hernias. The importance of ail abdo-
men and of subsequent respiratory disorders. Chirurgie. 1973;99(8):547–63.
9. Stoppa RE. The treatment of complicated groin and incisional hernias. World J Surg.
1989;13(5):545–54.
10. Timmermans L, de Goede B, van Dijk SM, Kleinrensink GJ, Jeekel J, Lange JF.Meta-analysis
of sublay versus onlay mesh repair in incisional hernia surgery. Am J Surg. 2014;207(6):980–
8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.08.030.
11. Muse TO, Zwischenberger BA, Miller MT, Borman DA, Davenport DL, Roth JS.Outcomes
after ventral hernia repair using the Rives-Stoppa, endoscopic, and open component separation
techniques. Am Surg. 2018;84(3):433–7.
12. Liang MK, Holihan JL, Itani K, Alawadi ZM, Gonzalez JR, Askenasy EP, Ballecer C, Chong
HS, Goldblatt MI, Greenberg JA, Harvin JA, Keith JN, Martindale RG, Orenstein S, Richmond
B, Roth JS, Szotek P, Towgh S, Tsuda S, Vaziri K, Berger DH.Ventral hernia management:
expert consensus guided by systematic review. Ann Surg. 2017;265(1):80–9. https://doi.
org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001701.
13. Albino FP, Patel KM, Nahabedian MY, Sosin M, Attinger CE, Bhanot P.Does mesh location
matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review of the literature and a summary
of recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(5):1295–304. https://doi.org/10.1097/
PRS.0b013e3182a4c393. Review.
14. Carbonell AM, Cobb WS, Chen SM.Posterior components separation during retromuscular
hernia repair. Hernia. 2008;12(4):359–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-008-0356-2.
15. Novitsky YW. Posterior component separation via transversus abdominis muscle release:
the TAR procedure. In: Novitsky YW, editor. Hernia surgery: current principles. NewYork:
Springer; 2016. p.15–22.
16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.02.008.
17. Novitsky YW, Fayezizadeh M, Majumder A, Neupane R, Elliott HL, Orenstein SB.Outcomes
of posterior component separation with transversus abdominis muscle release and synthetic mesh sublay reinforcement. Ann Surg. 2016;264(2):226–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0000000000001673.
18. Cornette B, De Bacquer D, Berrevoet F. Component separation technique for giant inci-
sional hernia: a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2018;215(4):719–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
amjsurg.2017.07.032.
19. Hodgkinson JD, Leo CA, Maeda Y, Bassett P, Oke SM, Vaizey CJ, Warusavitarne J.A meta-
analysis comparing open anterior component separation with posterior component separation and transversus abdominis release in the repair of midline ventral hernias. Hernia.
2018;22(4):617–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-018-1757-5.
20. Sauerland S, Walgenbach M, Habermalz B, Seiler CM, Miserez M. Laparoscopic versus
open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2011;(3):CD007781. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007781.pub2. Review.
21. DeMaria EJ, Moss JM, Sugerman HJ.Laparoscopic intraperitoneal polytetrauoroethylene
(PTFE) prosthetic patch repair of ventral hernia. Prospective comparison to open prefascial
polypropylene mesh repair. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(4):326–9.
22. Carbajo MA, Martín del Olmo JC, Blanco JI, de la Cuesta C, Toledano M, Martin F, Vaquero
C, Inglada L.Laparoscopic treatment vs open surgery in the solution of major incisional and
abdominal wall hernias with mesh. Surg Endosc. 1999;13(3):250–2.
23. Bingener J, Buck L, Richards M, Michalek J, Schwesinger W, Sirinek K.Long-term outcomes
in laparoscopic vs open ventral hernia repair. Arch Surg. 2007;142(6):562–7.
24. Pierce RA, Spitler JA, Frisella MM, Matthews BD, Brunt LM. Pooled data analysis of
laparoscopic vs. open ventral hernia repair: 14 years of patient data accrual. Surg Endosc.
2007;21(3):378–86.
D. Bernstein and G. R . Jacobsen

22 Robotic Transversus Abdominus Release
25. Warren JA, Cobb WS, Ewing JA, Carbonell AM.Standard laparoscopic versus robotic ret-
romuscular ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(1):324–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00464-016-4975-x.
26. Carbonell AM, Warren JA, Prabhu AS, Ballecer CD, Janczyk RJ, Herrera J, Huang LC,
Phillips S, Rosen MJ, Poulose BK.Reducing length of stay using a robotic-assisted approach
for retromuscular ventral hernia repair: a comparative analysis from the Americas Hernia
Society Quality Collaborative. Ann Surg. 2018;267(2):210–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0000000000002244.
27. Bittner JG 4th, Alrefai S, Vy M, Mabe M, Del Prado PAR, Clingempeel NL.Comparative
analysis of open and robotic transversus abdominis release for ventral hernia repair. Surg
Endosc. 2018;32(2):727–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5729-0.
28. Pauli EM, Wang J, Petro CC, Juza RM, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ.Posterior component separa-
tion with transversus abdominis release successfully addresses recurrent ventral hernias following anterior component separation. Hernia. 2015;19(2):285–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10029-014-1331-8.
29. Nakayama M, Yoshimatsu K, Yokomizo H, Yano Y, Okayama S, Satake M, Matsumoto
A, Fujimoto T, Usui T, Yamaguchi K, Shiozawa S, Shimakawa T, Katsube T, Naritaka
Y.Incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia after open surgery for colorectal cancer.
Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2014;61(133):1220–3.
30. Basta MN, Fischer JP, Wink JD, Kovach SJ.Mortality after inpatient open ventral hernia repair:
developing a risk stratication tool based on 55,760 operations. Am J Surg. 2016;211(6):1047–
57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.03.009.
369

Subxiphoid andSuprapubic Hernia
Repair
KarlA.LeBlanc
23.1 Introduction
Subxiphoid and suprapubic hernias represent an especially difcult subset of incisional hernias to repair. This is because they are located in anatomically challenging
areas of the abdominal wall that make surgical repair very difcult. The bony structures that are associated with them and the tissues associated make the repair somewhat different to that of the traditional incisional hernias in the midline of the
abdominal wall. It is oftentimes difcult or impossible to achieve fascial closure of
the hernia in these locations as well. The use of the robot has represented an advance
that makes this more feasible than with traditional laparoscopic methods.
The subxiphoid hernias can develop after median sternotomy or the use of a
mediastinal tube during cardiac surgery or laparoscopic surgical trocar placement
such as during laparoscopic cholecystectomy [1, 2]. Poststernotomy hernias are
uncommon but do occur in approximately 1–4.2% of these procedures [3–5]. Rarely
they can occur spontaneously or associated with diastasis recti. Most of these are
asymptomatic and/or are identied during an unrelated operative procedure. They
generally do not contain any intra-abdominal contents other than the omentum and/
or the falciform ligament, but they can occasionally contain intestine or stomach.
Preoperative testing with CT scanning is recommended to evaluate the size and
contents of the hernia. Open repair with sutures alone has a recurrence rate as high
as 80%; the use of a mesh lowers this rate to up to 33% [3]. The laparoscopic
approach has a failure rate of approximately 10%. In my experience, this type of
hernia represents approximately 4% of my incisional hernia repairs. I have had success with the laparoscopic repair but feel the robotic repair will be the best repair,
but this is anecdotal opinion. There is no literature to report at this time.
23
K. A. LeBlanc (*)
Our Lady of the Lake Physician Group, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
K. A. LeBlanc (ed.), Robotic Assisted Hernia Repair,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23025-8_23
371

372
K. A. LeBlanc
Suprapubic hernias are nearly always the result of a midline incision from prior
surgery in the lower abdomen but can also occur after Pfannenstiel incisions and
even after the placement of a suprapubic catheter. Most often they are an extension
of a larger incisional hernia. Here, too, preoperative CT imaging will be very helpful
to delineate the presence and extent of the hernia borders. The true incidence of
these defects is poorly known as most of them are not reported separately from an
incisional hernia. These types of hernias are generally dened as a hernia less than
4cm from the pelvic rim in the midline of the abdomen [6, 7]. The open repair of
this hernia is well described and reproducible [8]. Some authors have used bone
anchors to insure a sound repair [9]. The laparoscopic repair is also very effective
and is nearly identical to some of the open repairs [1, 2, 10–13]. It has been demonstrated that the presence of such a hernia increases the complexity and consequently
the operative time to repair such a defect laparoscopically [14]. Bone anchors have
also been applied in the laparoscopic repair as well [15]. To date, there are no reports
of robotic assisted repair of suprapubic hernia although it is known to have been
used for this hernia multiple times. In my practice, the incidence of a suprapubic
hernia associated with an incisional hernia is 8%. I have repaired these with the
robotic assisted repair since early 2014.
The methods described below will use the intraperitoneal placement of the mesh
material. There are a variety of other methods such as the retrorectus repair, the
transversus abdominis release and others that are described elsewhere in this textbook. While those chapters focus on the incisional hernias for the most part, the
principles also can be applied to these types of hernias as well.
23.2 Operating Room Set Up
The overall operating room set up is discussed in another chapter in this book. The
use of either the Intuitive Surgical Si, X, or Xi will be adequate to repair all of these
hernias. At the time of this writing, I am unaware of the use of any other robot to
repair these hernias. As with my incisional hernias, I prefer the use of three robotic
trocars plus a fourth 12mm accessory trocar (Figs.23.1, 23.2, 23.3, and 23.4). As
noted in three of these gures, there is that additional trocar in the subcostal region.
I most often use this location as my initial point of entry into the abdomen. The
5 mm optical trocar will be replaced with a 12 mm trocar after insertion of the
robotic trocars. This initial site will allow the assessment of the location of adhesions and the location of the robotic trocars. This method also allows the insufation
of the abdominal cavity prior to introduction of the additional trocars. This will
elevate the abdominal wall and allow an increase in the lateral distance of the intestine and the abdominal wall. The effect of this is to allow a more lateral location of
the robotic trocars if needed to treat the hernia. It is not used to dock the fourth arm
of the robot but is instead used to insert sutures and mesh and then to remove the
needles or any excised mesh from prior operations.

23 Subxiphoid andSuprapubic Hernia Repair
373
Fig. 23.1 Port placement—subxiphoid hernia (legend applies to Figs.23.1, 23.2, 23.3, and 23.4)
For ease of use by the scrub assistant, it is preferred to locate this trocar on that
side of the table. Figures 23.1 and 23.3 exemplify the preferred locations of the
trocars for the “simpler” defects. Figures23.2 and 23.4 represent the trocar locations with hernias that are larger and/or associated with midline incisional hernias
beyond the subxiphoid and suprapubic locations. The Xi and X cameras will be
placed in identical locations. The Si camera is placed less in a straight line but more
in a triangle type conguration as noted in these gures.
23.3 Surgical Technique
Prophylactic antibiotics and anticoagulation are given to all patients. A two-way
urinary catheter is used for either hernia repair. On occasion, a three-way urinary
catheter is used during the repair of the suprapubic hernias if there has been extensive prior surgical dissection in this area. This will allow the surgeon to ll the
bladder with uid to aid in identication of the organ if needed. Orogastric tubes

374
K. A. LeBlanc
Fig. 23.2 Alternate port placement—subxiphoid hernia
are also used prior to the introduction of the rst trocar to decompress the
stomach.
For both of these hernia types, as all ventral and incisional hernias, adhesiolysis
will initiate the procedure. I prefer to use the robotic fenestrated bipolar and the
robotic electrocautery scissors for the dissection. Upon completion of this step it is
imperative to separate as much of the preperitoneal fat from the tissues to allow for
good approximation of the intraperitoneal mesh with the abdominal wall. In the
upper abdomen, this will require the dissection of the falciform ligament as much as
possible. In the lower abdomen, the preperitoneal space must be entered and the
bladder dissected away until the exposure of Cooper’s ligament has been realized.
This latter dissection will mimic that performed for the robotic assisted transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair.

23 Subxiphoid andSuprapubic Hernia Repair
375
Fig. 23.3 Port placement—suprapubic hernia
All dissection is done with the intra-abdominal pressure set at 15mm Hg. A ruler
is then inserted into the abdomen and used to measure the defect at its greatest
dimensions. This should be done in transverse and vertical directions. If there are
multiple defects rather than a single defect, the largest distance of all of the defects
are used as a single measurement. It is important to emphasize that this measurement is performed prior to the closure of the fascial defect. In only this manner, will
adequate overlap be assured in the event that the fascial closure does not remain
intact at any point postoperatively. The mesh and the mesh size are then selected. As
a general rule of thumb, a minimum of 5cm overlap is used for the usual incisional
hernias. Due to the complexity of the location of these hernias, these overlap considerations are modied as noted below.
To accomplish the suture placement, the instruments are changed to a MegaSuture
Cut and a MegaSuture device. During closure of the fascia, the intra-abdominal pressure will be reduced to 6–8mm Hg to reduce the tension on the re- approximated tissue.
As noted earlier, it is not always possible to re-approximate the fascia in these hernias.

376
K. A. LeBlanc
Fig. 23.4 Alternate port placement—suprapubic hernia
Consideration at that time to conversion to the posterior component separation procedure can facilitate this closure if deemed necessary. Alternatively, the mesh can be
“bridged” across the defect as one does during the traditional laparoscopic repair.
Once the closure of the fascial defect is completed, the pressure will be brought
back to 15mm Hg. to make suturing of the mesh easier to accomplish. For all of my
incisional hernia repairs and certainly for these hernias, I will place four rows of
sutures (Fig. 23.5). I use two double armed polypropylene barbed sutures (#2).
These are started in the middle of the mesh on either side as the starting point (A &
B). As noted in the gure, there is a row at the periphery of the mesh. I continue to
use these sutures from this line to place a row on either side of the closed fascia.
This will bolster the fascial closure, perhaps minimizing the chance of separation of
the closure, which will reduce the risk of recurrence. Additionally, the mesh will
instantly contact the tissue to reduce the chance of seroma formation and increase
the rapidity of ingrowth into the mesh material. A difference that will be noted
below is that additional xation will be needed to attach the mesh in the suprapubic
hernia repair.

23 Subxiphoid andSuprapubic Hernia Repair
Fig. 23.5 Typical suture pattern of subxiphoid and suprapubic hernia
Fig. 23.6 Undissected
subxiphoid hernia
377
For subxiphoid hernias, the ribs and sternum are usually very near or at the borders of this hernia making fascial closure especially challenging (Figs.23.6 and
23.7). Consequently, a larger overlap is recommended; up to 8cm will be best dur-
ing repair of these hernias. Due to the fact that surgical closure of the fascial defect
is not always feasible it is especially important to adhere to this recommendation
1
(Fig.23.8).
Although not demonstrated in this gure, I currently prefer to insert the
mesh prior to closure of the defect so that a centrally placed suture on the mesh can
be used to assure the correct location of the mesh. If the ECHO or ECHO2 positioning device is used, the tubing or suture will likewise be used to locate the mesh. This
can be difcult but usually there is enough room to allow for this to occur. If one
pulls the central suture through the abdominal wall after closure of the fascial defect,
there is a real possibility of losing the center of the fascial defect resulting in an
1
The hernia in Figs.23.6 and 23.7 are not the same as the hernia repaired in Figs.23.8 and 23.9.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
