Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_874_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
35 Мб
Скачать
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 benets, 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 inHernia 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 benets for the patient. With the use of mesh, the long-term outcomes, of intraperitoneal meshes and mesh devices in particular, might result in signicant patient harm with reopera­tions, chronic pain, stula formation or other mesh-related complications. However, it is very difcult 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 benet.
3.5.2 Patient Selection forERAS 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 identication 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 benets 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 benet from inclusion of all subjects followed by subgroup analyses to deter­mine appropriate patients for inclusion in hernia-specic ERAS protocols moving forward.
3.5.3 Implementation ofERAS
Evidence suggests that change in clinical practice occurs 15years 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 withtheERAS 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 etal. published a systematic review on ERAS protocols in ventral her­nias in 2016; they demonstrated a mean reduction in length of stay of 2.07days and a trend toward decreased readmission rates in the ERAS group [52]. Jensen etal. 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 125mg intravenous in an effort to attenuate the inammatory 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 signicant differences between the two groups with respect to rates of readmission, postoperative complications or reoperation [50].
Majumder etal. 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 specic 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 1month 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-inammatories (NSAIDs). Using this compre­hensive ERAS pathway, 100 patients were compared to 100 historical controls. A decreased LOS was observed from 6.1 to 4days, 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 signicantly reduced after the introduction of enhanced recovery after surgery (median 4, interquartile range 3–6days vs. control 5, 4–7days, 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 ofERAS
The longer-term benets 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 benet 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 proles. 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 stratication 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, Towgh 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
justied 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 inltration 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.Benets 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. Identication 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 forRobot-Assisted Hernia Repair
KarlA.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 difcult 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 veries the claims made by the manufacturers. It is very difcult 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 forUse ofProsthetic 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 (Table4.1).
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 signicant 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 decit (denervation)
4 Prosthetic Materials forRobot-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 dened 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 scarication 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 scarica­tion, 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 (Table4.2).
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