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

3 Enhanced Recovery After Hernia Repair
45
3.4.3 Early Enteral Feeding
Keeping patients “nil per os” has been the rule, at least until return of bowel function. However, multiple studies have demonstrated success with early enteral feeding [38, 39]. Early nourishment to the patient leads to multiple metabolic benets,
as well as reducing postoperative ileus and decreasing length of hospitalization,
without added risk. Most patients tolerate early feeding without the need for nasogastric tube placement.
3.5 Discussion
3.5.1 Measuring Quality inHernia Surgery
Measuring, reporting, and comparing outcomes, are important steps toward rapidly
improving outcomes and making reasonable choices about reducing costs. Within
hernia surgery, there is a need for the full assessment of quality throughout lifetime
of that patient when measuring outcomes. ERAS implementation might favor short
term outcomes, but might be less effective in changing long-term benets for the
patient. With the use of mesh, the long-term outcomes, of intraperitoneal meshes
and mesh devices in particular, might result in signicant patient harm with reoperations, chronic pain, stula formation or other mesh-related complications. However,
it is very difcult to obtain this kind of data collection. A recent example of how
this can be done is provided through the American Hernia Society Qualitative
Collaboration [40]. They prospectively collect demographic patient risk factors,
perioperative details, and long-term follow-up using validated patient-reported outcome measures, including the PROMIS pain scale, the Ventral Hernia Recurrence
Inventory, and the Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey (HERQLES) abdominal
wall functional scores [41, 42]. From this data evidence-based guidelines were published to improve quality outcomes, including elimination of routine preoperative
outpatient chlorhexidine scrubs, elimination of routine bowel preparation before
elective hernia repair, the potential downside of epidural utilization in ventral hernia repairs, and methods to reduce readmissions after ventral hernia repair [27, 43,
44]. Establishment of clinical quality improvement programs is an excellent way
to develop means to track and improve outcomes. This tool allows individual programs to interpret interventions in all patients and apply those interventions only to
those who will receive the greatest benet.
3.5.2 Patient Selection forERAS After Surgery Protocols
Hernias of the abdominal wall might present in different ways, various width, and
multiple locations, while ERAS protocols in hernia surgery mainly will focus on
surgical repairs associated with longer length of hospital stay. This then includes
primary and recurrent ventral, incisional, and parastomal hernias. There is not that
much literature to support the identication of appropriate patient populations for

46
F. Berrevoet
enrollment in ERAS hernia protocols. It is not yet well studied, nor is it entirely
clear which patient populations are appropriate for enrollment into ERAS pathways. Although certain protocols demonstrated benets from ERAS, individual
patients might have to be excluded based on placement of biologic mesh due
to contaminated elds, and other potential sequelae requiring prolonged hospital
stay [45].
Patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction may not meet the enrollment
criteria set forth in studies from other areas in surgery. Future studies would indeed
benet from inclusion of all subjects followed by subgroup analyses to determine appropriate patients for inclusion in hernia-specic ERAS protocols moving
forward.
3.5.3 Implementation ofERAS
Evidence suggests that change in clinical practice occurs 15years after clear evidence is available [46]. A growing amount of literature on barriers to implementation reports that factors that enable the successful implementation of ERAS include
not only a willingness to change to ERAS, formation of multidisciplinary teams
and thereby improved communication and collaboration, and support by hospital
management, but also standardization of order sets and care processes and the use
of audits. Barriers to implementation are a general resistance to change, lack of
time and staff, and poor communication, collaboration, and coordination between
departments [47, 48].
3.5.4 Outcomes withtheERAS Protocol
There are many stakeholders in surgical care, i.e. professionals from various disciplines as well as managers, politicians, payers, and the general public are involved,
as are the medical device and pharmaceutical industries. The early studies reporting
on outcomes after ERAS were often met with disbelief, and some thought (incorrectly) that it was careful selection of patients that resulted in a shortened hospital
stay. Now diverse groups publishing on consecutive series and using ERAS principles show consistent results [49, 50].
A meta-analysis of randomized trials of the ERAS protocol in patients undergoing colorectal surgery showed that complication rates were reduced by up to 50%,
when ERAS principles were used [51]. These studies revealed that not only overall complications were reduced with better compliance, but the most severe complications, which resulted in reoperations or admission to the intensive care unit,
decreased as mortality improved.
There are only few studies that directly investigate ERAS protocols when applied
to the hernia population. ERAS protocols are mostly targeted at patients undergoing open abdominal wall reconstruction, because these patients are hospitalized
postoperatively.

3 Enhanced Recovery After Hernia Repair
47
Macedo etal. published a systematic review on ERAS protocols in ventral hernias in 2016; they demonstrated a mean reduction in length of stay of 2.07days and
a trend toward decreased readmission rates in the ERAS group [52]. Jensen etal.
examined 32 consecutive subjects undergoing giant ventral hernia repair. ERAS
protocols were implemented and compared retrospectively to a standard care control group. The main emphasis in the ERAS protocol included preoperative highdose glucocorticoid administration (methylprednisolone 125mg intravenous in an
effort to attenuate the inammatory response) and led to low scores of pain, fatigue,
and nausea. Other elements differing from the standard pathway included preoperative education on the pathway and expectations of discharge, twice daily discharge assessments, and more aggressive bowel regimens, including gum chewing
and scheduled enemas. The primary endpoint of length of stay was decreased after
implementation (median 3.0 vs 5.5 days, p = 0.003). There were no statistically
signicant differences between the two groups with respect to rates of readmission,
postoperative complications or reoperation [50].
Majumder etal. published a series of ERAS after VHR [45]. This ERAS pathway was broader, including both perioperative care and preoperative patient optimization. Preoperatively, obese patients underwent weight loss counseling, though no
specic BMI cut-off was used, and the effect of this counseling on actual preoperative weight loss was not reported. Additionally, patients with diabetes were required
to reach a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of <8. Smoking cessation for at least 1month
prior to surgery was mandatory. Intraoperatively, a transversus abdominis plane
(TAP) block was performed using liposomal bupivacaine. Postoperatively, patients
received hydromorphone PCA, oral oxycodone, oral acetaminophen, diazepam,
gabapentin, and non-steroidal anti-inammatories (NSAIDs). Using this comprehensive ERAS pathway, 100 patients were compared to 100 historical controls. A
decreased LOS was observed from 6.1 to 4days, as well as a reduction in readmission rate. An earlier resumption of regular diet, earlier return of bowel function, and
earlier progression to oral narcotic analgesia were also seen in the ERAS group.
Recently, Jensen and colleagues published on 94 patients of a larger cohort undergoing ventral hernia repair with their enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. Length
of stay was signicantly reduced after the introduction of enhanced recovery after
surgery (median 4, interquartile range 3–6days vs. control 5, 4–7days, P<0.001).
There was no difference between the cohorts in the incidence of postoperative complications requiring operative intervention (enhanced recovery after surgery 10.6%
vs control 10.4%, P = 1.0) or the rate of readmissions (enhanced recovery after
surgery 16.0% vs control 12.5%, P=0.635) [53].
3.5.5 Long-Term Benefits ofERAS
The longer-term benets of rapid, uncomplicated recovery using ERAS principles
are less well known. Medium-term outcomes have been sparsely studied [54]
and long-term data on outcomes are now only beginning to appear. Patients with
higher compliance might have fewer complications, which may affect the observed

48
F. Berrevoet
outcomes. Perioperative complications have been shown to be strongly associated
with poor long-term outcomes in very large surgical series [55]. However, whether
the ventral hernia patient will also benet long-term from ERAS measurements has
to be studied in the coming years.
References
1. Fearon KC, Ljungqvist O, Von Meyenfeldt M, Revhaug A, Dejong CH, Lassen K, Nygren J,
Hausel J, Soop M, Andersen J, Kehlet H.Enhanced recovery after surgery: a consensus review
of clinical care for patients undergoing colonic resection. Clin Nutr. 2005;24(3):466–77.
2. Sørensen LT, Toft BG, Rygaard J, Ladelund S, Paddon M, James T, Taylor R, Gottrup
F. Effect of smoking, smoking cessation, and nicotine patch on wound dimension, vitamin
C, and systemic markers of collagen metabolism. Surgery. 2010;148(5):982–90. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.surg.2010.02.005.
3. Sørensen LT, Hemmingsen UB, Kirkeby LT, Kallehave F, Jørgensen LN.Smoking is a risk
factor for incisional hernia. Arch Surg. 2005;140(2):119–23.
4. Sørensen LT, Hemmingsen U, Jørgensen T. Strategies of smoking cessation intervention
before hernia surgery--effect on perioperative smoking behavior. Hernia. 2007;11(4):327–33.
5. Yang GP, Longaker MT.Abstinence from smoking reduces incisional wound infection: a ran-
domized, controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2003;238(1):6–8.
6. Petro CC, Haskins IN, Tastaldi L, Tu C, Krpata DM, Rosen MJ, Prabhu AS.Does active
smoking really matter before ventral hernia repair? An AHSQC analysis. Surgery. 2018. pii:
S0039- 6060(18)30499-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2018.07.039. [Epub ahead of print].
7. Sørensen LT. Wound healing and infection in surgery. The clinical impact of smoking and
smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2012;147(4):373–83.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2012.5.
8. Jensen JA, Goodson WH, Hopf HW, Hunt TK.Cigarette smoking decreases tissue oxygen.
Arch Surg. 1991;126(9):1131–4.
9. Knuutinen A, Kokkonen N, Risteli J, Vähäkangas K, Kallioinen M, Salo T, Sorsa T, Oikarinen
A.Smoking affects collagen synthesis and extracellular matrix turnover in human skin. Br J
Dermatol. 2002;146(4):588–94.
10. Sorensen LT, Karlsmark T, Gottrup F. Abstinence from smoking reduces incisional wound
infection: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2003;238(1):1–5.
11. Thomsen T, Villebro N, Møller AM.Interventions for preoperative smoking cessation. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2014;3:CD002294. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002294.pub4.
12. Moyer TP, Charlson JR, Enger RJ, Dale LC, Ebbert JO, Schroeder DR, Hurt RD.Simultaneous
analysis of nicotine, nicotine metabolites, and tobacco alkaloids in serum or urine by
tandem mass spectrometry, with clinically relevant metabolic proles. Clin Chem.
2002;48(9):1460–71.
13. Feldhammer M, Ritchie JC.Anabasine is a poor marker for determining smoking status of trans-
plant patients. Clin Chem. 2017;63(2):604–6. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2016.265546.
14. Sauerland S, Korenkov M, Kleinen T, Arndt M, Paul A.Obesity is a risk factor for recurrence
after incisional hernia repair. Hernia. 2004;8(1):42–6.
15. Desai KA, Razavi SA, Hart AM, Thompson PW, Losken A.The effect of BMI on outcomes
following complex abdominal wall reconstructions. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(Suppl 4):S295–
7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000673.
16. Fischer JP, Wink JD, Tuggle CT, Nelson JA, Kovach SJ.Wound risk assessment in ventral
hernia repair: generation and internal validation of a risk stratication system using the ACSNSQIP.Hernia. 2015;19(1):103–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1318-5.
17. 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:

3 Enhanced Recovery After Hernia Repair
expert consensus guided by systematic review. Ann Surg. 2017;265(1):80–9. https://doi.
org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001701.
18. Ban KA, Minei JP, Laronga C, Harbrecht BG, Jensen EH, Fry DE, Itani KM, Dellinger EP,
Ko CY, Duane TM.American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical
Site Infection Guidelines, 2016 update. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224(1):59–74. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.10.029.
19. Veterans Affairs Total Parenteral Nutrition Cooperative Study Group. Perioperative total par-
enteral nutrition in surgical patients. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(8):525–32.
20. Cereda E.Mini nutritional assessment. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2012;15(1):29–41.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0b013e32834d7647.
21. Guigoz Y.The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) review of the literature--What does it tell
us? J Nutr Health Aging. 2006;10(6):466–85; discussion 485–7.
22. Maltby JR, Sutherland AD, Sale JP, Shaffer EA. Preoperative oral uids: is a ve-hour fast
justied prior to elective surgery? Anesth Analg. 1986;65(11):1112–6.
23. Swenson BR, Hedrick TL, Metzger R, Bonatti H, Pruett TL, Sawyer RG.Effects of pre-
operative skin preparation on postoperative wound infection rates: a prospective study of 3
skin preparation protocols. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009;30(10):964–71. https://doi.
org/10.1086/605926.
24. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, Otterson MF, Webb AL, Carrick MM, Miller HJ, Awad
SS, Crosby CT, Mosier MC, Alsharif A, Berger DH.Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidoneiodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18–26. https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJMoa0810988.
25. Berríos-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW, Leas B, Stone EC, Kelz RR, Reinke CE,
Morgan S, Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Dellinger EP, Itani KMF, Berbari EF, Segreti J, Parvizi
J, Blanchard J, Allen G, Kluytmans JAJW, Donlan R, Schecter WP.Healthcare infection control practices advisory committee. centers for disease control and prevention guideline for
the prevention of surgical site infection, 2017. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(8):784–91. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0904.
26. Chlebicki MP, Safdar N, O’Horo JC, Maki DG.Preoperative chlorhexidine shower or bath for
prevention of surgical site infection: a meta-analysis. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(2):167–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.02.014.
27. Prabhu AS, Krpata DM, Phillips S, Huang LC, Haskins IN, Rosenblatt S, Poulose BK, Rosen
MJ. Preoperative chlorhexidine gluconate use can increase risk for surgical site infections
after ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224(3):334–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jamcollsurg.2016.12.013.
28. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, Perl TM, Auwaerter PG, Bolon MK, Fish DN,
Napolitano LM, Sawyer RG, Slain D, Steinberg JP, Weinstein RA. American Society of
Health-System Pharmacists; Infectious Disease Society of America; Surgical Infection
Society; Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clinical practice guidelines for
antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013;70(3):195–283. https://
doi.org/10.2146/ajhp120568.
29. Fonseca SN, Kunzle SR, Junqueira MJ, Nascimento RT, de Andrade JI, Levin
AS.Implementing 1-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of surgical site infection. Arch
Surg. 2006;141(11):1109–13; discussion 1114.
30. Berrevoet F, Vanlander A, Sainz-Barriga M, Rogiers X, Troisi R.Infected large pore meshes
may be salvaged by topical negative pressure therapy. Hernia. 2013;17(1):67–73. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10029-012-0969-3.
31. Le D, Deveney CW, Reaven NL, Funk SE, McGaughey KJ, Martindale RG.Mesh choice in
ventral hernia repair: so many choices, so little time. Am J Surg. 2013;205(5):602–7; discussion 607.
32. Tan EK, Cornish J, Darzi AW, Tekkis PP.Meta-analysis: Alvimopan vs. placebo in the treat-
ment of post-operative ileus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25(1):47–57.
33. Christoffersen MW, Olsen BH, Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T.Randomized clinical trial on the post-
operative use of an abdominal binder after laparoscopic umbilical and epigastric hernia repair.
Hernia. 2015;19(1):147–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1289-6.
49

50
34. Hurley RW, Cohen SP, Williams KA, Rowlingson AJ, Wu CL. The analgesic effects of
perioperative gabapentin on postoperative pain: a meta-analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med.
2006;31(3):237–47.
35. Petersen PL, Hilsted KL, Dahl JB, Mathiesen O.Bilateral transversus abdominis plane (TAP)
block with 24 hours ropivacaine infusion via TAP catheters: a randomized trial in healthy volunteers. BMC Anesthesiol. 2013;13(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-13-30.
36. Cohen SM.Extended pain relief trial utilizing inltration of Exparel(®), a long-acting mul-
tivesicular liposome formulation of bupivacaine: a Phase IV health economic trial in adult
patients undergoing open colectomy. J Pain Res. 2012;5:567–72. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.
S38621.
37. Petersen PL, Mathiesen O, Torup H, Dahl JB. The transversus abdominis plane block: a
valuable option for postoperative analgesia? A topical review. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand.
2010;54(5):529–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2010.02215.x.
38. Barlow R, Price P, Reid TD, Hunt S, Clark GW, Havard TJ, Puntis MC, Lewis WG.Prospective
multicentre randomised controlled trial of early enteral nutrition for patients undergoing
major upper gastrointestinal surgical resection. Clin Nutr. 2011;30(5):560–6. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.clnu.2011.02.006.
39. McClave SA, Codner P, Patel J, Hurt RT, Allen K, Martindale RG.Should we aim for full
enteral feeding in the rst week of critical illness? Nutr Clin Pract. 2016;31(4):425–31. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0884533616653809.
40. Poulose BK, Roll S, Murphy JW, Matthews BD, Todd Heniford B, Voeller G, Hope WW,
Goldblatt MI, Adrales GL, Rosen MJ. Design and implementation of the Americas
Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC): improving value in hernia care. Hernia.
2016;20(2):177–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1477-7.
41. Krpata DM, Schmotzer BJ, Flocke S, Jin J, Blatnik JA, Ermlich B, Novitsky YW, Rosen
MJ. Design and initial implementation of HerQLes: a hernia-related quality-of-life survey to assess abdominal wall function. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(5):635–42. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.06.412.
42. Muysoms FE, Deerenberg EB, Peeters E, Agresta F, Berrevoet F, Campanelli G, Ceelen W,
Champault GG, Corcione F, Cuccurullo D, DeBeaux AC, Dietz UA, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Gillion
JF, Hilgers RD, Jeekel J, Kyle-Leinhase I, Köckerling F, Mandala V, Montgomery A, MoralesConde S, Simmermacher RK, Schumpelick V, Smietański M, Walgenbach M, Miserez
M. Recommendations for reporting outcome results in abdominal wall repair: results of a
Consensus meeting in Palermo, Italy, 28-30 June 2012. Hernia. 2013;17(4):423–33. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10029-013-1108-5.
43. Krpata DM, Haskins IN, Phillips S, Prabhu AS, Rosenblatt S, Poulose BK, Rosen MJ.Does pre-
operative bowel preparation reduce surgical site infections during elective ventral hernia repair?
J Am Coll Surg. 2017;224(2):204–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.10.049.
44. Prabhu AS, Krpata DM, Perez A, Phillips S, Huang LC, Haskins IN, Rosenblatt S, Poulose
BK, Rosen MJ.Is it time to reconsider postoperative epidural analgesia in patients undergoing
elective ventral hernia repair?: an AHSQC analysis. Ann Surg. 2018;267(5):971–6. https://doi.
org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002214.
45. Majumder A, Fayezizadeh M, Neupane R, Elliott HL, Novitsky YW.Benets of multimodal
enhanced recovery pathway in patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg.
2016;222(6):1106–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.02.015.
46. Lassen K, Hannemann P, Ljungqvist O, Fearon K, Dejong CH, von Meyenfeldt MF, Hausel J,
Nygren J, Andersen J, Revhaug A.Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Group Patterns in current perioperative practice: survey of colorectal surgeons in ve northern European countries.
BMJ. 2005;330(7505):1420–1.
47. Pearsall EA, Meghji Z, Pitzul KB, Aarts MA, McKenzie M, McLeod RS, Okrainec A.A
qualitative study to understand the barriers and enablers in implementing an enhanced
recovery after surgery program. Ann Surg. 2015;261(1):92–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0000000000000604.
F. Berrevoet

3 Enhanced Recovery After Hernia Repair
48. Ament SM, Gillissen F, Moser A, Maessen JM, Dirksen CD, von Meyenfeldt MF, van der
Weijden T. Identication of promising strategies to sustain improvements in hospital practice: a qualitative case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:641. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12913-014-0641-y.
49. Delaney CP, Fazio VW, Senagore AJ, Robinson B, Halverson AL, Remzi FH. ‘Fast track’
postoperative management protocol for patients with high co-morbidity undergoing complex
abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2001;88(11):1533–8.
50. Jensen KK, Brondum TL, Harling H, Kehlet H, Jorgensen LN.Enhanced recovery after giant
ventral hernia repair. Hernia. 2016;20(2):249–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1471-0.
51. Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Dejong CH, Fearon KC, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN.The enhanced
recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr. 2010;29(4):434–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2010.01.004.
52. Macedo FIB, Mittal VK.Does enhanced recovery pathways affect outcomes in open ventral
hernia repair? Hernia. 2017;21(5):817–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1553-z.
53. Jensen KK, Dressler J, Baastrup NN, Kehlet H, Jørgensen LN.Enhanced recovery after abdom-
inal wall reconstruction reduces length of postoperative stay: an observational cohort study.
Surgery. 2018. pii: S0039-6060(18)30493-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2018.07.035.
[Epub ahead of print].
54. Neville A, Lee L, Antonescu I, Mayo NE, Vassiliou MC, Fried GM, Feldman LS.Systematic
review of outcomes used to evaluate enhanced recovery after surgery. Br J Surg.
2014;101(3):159–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9324.
55. Khuri SF, Henderson WG, DePalma RG, Mosca C, Healey NA, Kumbhani DJ, Participants
in the VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Determinants of long-term survival after major surgery and the adverse effect of postoperative complications. Ann Surg.
2005;242(3):326–41; discussion 341–3.
51

Prosthetic Materials forRobot-Assisted
Hernia Repair
KarlA.LeBlanc
4.1 Introduction
Incisional hernias will develop in at least 13% and perhaps as many as 20% of laparotomy incisions. The risk of herniation is increased by vefold if a postoperative
wound infection occurs. Other factors that predispose to the development of a fascial defect include smoking, obesity, poor nutritional status, steroid usage, etc.
While some of these may be avoided, those patients that are found to have such a
hernia can present difcult management problems due to the high potential for
recurrence. It has been known for many years that without the use of a prosthetic
material, the recurrence rate for ventral hernia repair is as high as 51% [1]. The use
of a synthetic material will reduce this rate to at least 10–24% [2]. While these publications are older, they are still relevant in today’s management of hernia repair.
Recent data still reveals a recurrence rate of 17.1% without the use of mesh, 12.3%
with open mesh repair and 10.6% with laparoscopic mesh repair [3].
The laparoscopic repair of incisional and ventral hernias was rst performed in
1991 using the Soft Tissue Patch made by W.L.Gore and Associates (Elkhart, DE,
USA) [4]. The recurrence rate that has been reported in other recent literature varies
from 0–11% but averages approximately 5.5%. A recent publication reported only
one recurrence in 368 hernias that were repaired in this multicenter study using the
robot technology [5].
The use of prosthetic biomaterials in the repair of hernias of the abdominal wall
is a virtual requirement to effectively repair them with robotic technology. As such,
it is very important for the surgeon to be as familiar with these materials as they are
with the technical aspects of the procedure itself. The “one size ts all” approach to
the use of mesh in the repair of hernias is not ideal. The size and location of the
hernia that is being repaired, the number of prior repairs and the type(s) of mesh
4
K. A. LeBlanc (*)
Our Lady of the Lake Physician Group, Baton Rouge, 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_4
53

54
K. A. LeBlanc
already in place and the co-morbidities of the patient into which this material will
be placed should dictate the type of material that will be chosen.
There are several hundred different products that can be used in the repair of the
hernias of the abdominal wall. This chapter will identify these goals and the properties of the various biomaterials that are on the market today. In many of the products
listed below there is a paucity of published literature that veries the claims made
by the manufacturers. It is very difcult to nd Level 1 studies that evaluate the success or failure of the respective materials. It is recommended that the reader is
advised to reference the available journals to identify the uses and results of these
materials. Finally, a large portion of the information presented was obtained from
the respective manufacturer directly but not in all cases. If necessary, the reader
should reference the particular manufacturer for in-depth information that cannot be
provided in this textbook.
4.2 Indications forUse ofProsthetic Materials
Surgeons recognize that the main purpose in the use of these materials will be the
repair of a fascial defect or a weakness in the abdominal wall. This situations will
occur in a variety of etiologies (Table4.1).
Musculofascial tissue strength can be lost in a variety of ways. The most common, of course, would be due to the external etiology of the weakness that develops
after a laparotomy or other abdominal incision. Another example would be the loss
of tissue with trauma such as gunshot wounds and/or treatment with an open abdomen. The increase of intra-abdominal pressure that results from signicant weight
gain will result in an internal source of weakening of the abdominal wall fascia.
Poor nutrition and/or protein malnutrition are also sources of such problems. Other
pre-disposing factors such as emphysema or the chronic bronchitis of individuals
that smoke tobacco products results in a constant increase in intra-abdominal pressure because of a frequent cough. Additionally the collagen breakdown that is
responsible for emphysema is a systematic effect and not limited to just the pulmonary tissues (i.e. metastatic emphysema). Potentially life-threatening infections
such as fasciitis and gangrene will produce large areas of necrosis and resultant
tissue loss due to required surgical debridement. More frequently, the development
Table 4.1 Indications for
prostheses
Replacement of lost musculofascial
tissue caused by:
Trauma
External
Internal
Infection
Reinforcement of native tissue weakness
Aging (laxity of tissues)
Neurological decit (denervation)

4 Prosthetic Materials forRobot-Assisted Hernia Repair
55
of a postoperative wound infection will increase the risk of herniation by as much a
vefold. It has been known for many decades that nearly 30% of patients that
develop a postoperative incisional wound infection will eventually develop an incisional hernia [6]. Modern needs of patients have resulted in the development of
products that are not permanent such as biologic meshes or synthetic absorbable
products. There are combination materials of these that include permanent
components.
The effects of aging and the declining ability of the elderly patients to repair the
native tissues will lead to the loss of fascial integrity. This is commonly seen with
direct inguinal hernias. It also occurs with the enlargement of the linea alba that is
referred to as diastasis recti. These latter defects can enlarge and occasionally
become symptomatic, requiring repair.
The most common defect that results from a denervation phenomenon follows
the ank incision that is utilized in a nephrectomy, lumbar sympathectomy or an
anterior approach to the lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease. This
can occasionally be seen following viral infections such as herpes zoster or even de
novo with no predisposing factors. In these entities, there is no dened fascial edge
that is seen with the more common anterior abdominal wall hernia defects. This is
due to the broad surface of the denervated musculature that has intact fascia but
lacks the reinforcement of healthy muscle tissue. Mesh materials are especially necessary for these problems to assure a durable and cosmetically acceptable repair as
possible.
4.3 Prosthetic Materials: History
The use of materials for the repairs of hernias can be found in antiquity. It is believed
that Heliodorus used cellulose from a cotton or ax plant to effect scarication in
the inguinal area to treat herniation in A.D. 25. The use of silver as a synthetic prosthesis was reported in 1900 [7]. Metallic biomaterials have also included the use of
tantalum gauze mesh, stainless steel mesh, and silver ligree [8]. None of these
materials gained wide acceptance because of the complications that were associated
with their usage. These included lack of pliability, seroma development, wound
infection, fatigue fractures, herniation through the fracture sites, abnormal scarication, adhesions, loss of structural integrity and allergic reactions. Additionally reoperation on these patients was particularly challenging.
It is interesting that the use of biologic materials was attempted many years ago. The
processing and the results varied from the currently available products (Table4.2).
Table 4.2 Natural prosthetic products
Autogenous dermal grafts Whole skin grafts
Dermal collagen homografts Porcine dermal collagen
Autogenous fascial heterografts Lyophilized aortic homografts
Preserved dural homografts Bovine pericardium
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
