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_926_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
31 Мб
Скачать
35 Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal (rTAPP) Hernia Repair for Ventral Hernias
Fig. 35.14 (a) Wide bilateral myopectineal dissection; (b) wide bilateral myopectineal dissection
269
Fig. 35.15 Primary defect closure
tility, we describe the rTAPP repair of anterior diaphragmatic hernias such as the hernia of Morgagni.
Morgagni or retrosternal hernias are considered as rare forms of congenital diaphragmatic defects located immedi­ately adjacent to the xiphoid process of the sternum. Its her­nia content can include omentum, liver, or any portion of the GI tract, all of which must be reduced safely prior to preperi­toneal dissection. Patient positioning and operative steps are similar to rTAPP repair of high epigastric and subxiphoid hernias.
Fig. 35.16 Mesh placement and fixation

35.5.2 Patient Positioning, Trocar Placement, and Docking

Patient is placed in a supine position with the arms tucked and padded. The camera port can generally be placed at the paraumbilical position assuming the umbilicus is situated at least 15 cm from the xiphoid process (Fig. 35.17). Two 8 mm instrument trocars are then placed 10 mm apart from the camera port. The patient is placed in a slight reverse Trendelenburg position and the robot is then docked over the left or the right shoulder which allows for unimpeded access
270
C. Ballecer and A. Weir
Fig. 35.17 Morgagni hernia port placement
Fig. 35.19 Peritoneal incision for Morgagni
hernia
to both the left and right upper quadrants (Fig. 35.18). A 30° up camera is utilized to effectively view the anterior abdomi­nal wall.

35.5.3 Operative Steps

As described above, meticulous adhesiolysis is performed to clear the anterior abdominal wall while avoiding injury to the peritoneum. The hernia content of the diaphragmatic defect is carefully reduced.
Fig. 35.18 Morgagni hernia docking position
Incision of the peritoneum is performed at least 5 cm caudal to the xiphoid process (Fig. 35.19). Confluent with preperitoneal dissection, the falciform ligament is also mobilized off the abdominal wall providing a source for peritoneal tissue for the eventual reperitonealization of mesh. Once the hernia sac is encountered, it is reduced. Preperitoneal dissection is continued cephalad to the defect including the central tendon to allow for adequate superior overlap.
Primary closure of the defect is performed with either run­ning barbed suture or interrupted sutures (Fig. 35.20a, b).
35 Robotic Transabdominal Preperitoneal (rTAPP) Hernia Repair for Ventral Hernias
Fig. 35.20 (a) Diaphragmatic defect closure; (b) diaphragmatic defect closure
271
Fig. 35.21 Subdiaphragmatic suture fixation
Suitable mesh is chosen based upon the original defect size. Mesh is then placed within the preperitoneal pocket. Either tacks or sutures are employed to secure the mesh to the abdominal wall. Sutures are placed above the level of the cos­tal margin. Subdiaphragmatic sutures are meticulous placed at cardinal points for superior fixation of mesh (Fig. 35.21). The mesh is then reperitonealized by re- approximating the peritoneal flap with either suture or tacks.

35.6 Conclusion

The rTAPP approach in the repair of abdominal wall and dia­phragmatic hernias are reproducible for smaller defects not requiring component separation. Not only is this approach reproducible, but it is also versatile in the repair of virtually any hernia in any location not requiring myofascial advance­ment releases.
272
C. Ballecer and A. Weir
Potential advantages of the technique include minimiz­ing the risk of mesh exposure to the intraperitoneal content, the ability to use a less expensive uncoated mesh, and potentially decreasing postoperative pain by utilizing less abdominal wall fixation as compared to that of traditional IPOM.
The rTAPP approach should be considered as another possible option in the repair of abdominal wall hernias. It is important to note that the dissection of a preperito­neal plane may be inaccessible due to numerous rea­sons including prior surgical interventions and the requirement of mesh explantation. Therefore, it is important to be well versed in other options and tech­niques of repair.

References

1. Halm JA, De Wall LL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, Lange JF. Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World J Surg. 2007;31:423–9.
2. Gray SH, Vick CC, Graham LA, Finan KR, Neumayer LA, Hawn MT. Risk of complications from enterotomy or unplanned bowel resection during elective hernia repair. Arch Surg. 2008;143:582–6.
3. Prasad P, Tantia O, Patle NM, Khanna S, Sen B. Laparoscopic trans­abdominal preperitoneal repair of ventral hernia: a step towards physiological repair. Indian J Surg. 2011;73:403–8.
4. Colavita PD, Tsirline VB, Belyansky I, Walters AL, Lincourt AE, Sing RF, Heniford BT. Prospective, long-term comparison of quality of life in laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg. 2012;256:714–22.
5. Liang MK, Clapp M, Li LT, Berger RL, Hicks SC. Patient satisfac­tion, chronic pain, and functional status following laparoscopic ven­tral hernia repair. World J Surg. 2013;37:530–7.

Robotic IPOM-Plus Repair

Eduardo Parra-Dávila, Estefanía J. Villalobos Rubalcava, and Carlos Hartmann

36.1 Introduction

Ventral hernia repair is one of the most common surgical procedures; however, the complexity is increasing and the repair remains a constant challenge [13].
Karl LeBlanc introduced the laparoscopic approach for
ventral hernia repair in 1992.
Its recurrence rates are similar to open ventral hernia repair rates, and it leads to improvements in recovery time, decrease in hospital length of stay, and complication rates. The initial technique described in the literature detailed placement of a mesh after reducing the contents of the hernia, but did not include closure of the abdominal wall defect (bridging) [13].
Defect closure by laparoscopy requires a high degree of specialized dexterity and incurs a significantly longer proce­dure time, which can deter the method [4, 5]. The bridging technique for hernia repair can cause functional problems with patients, due to no musculo-aponeurotic coverage, resulting in adynamic areas of the abdominal wall. The bulg­ing of the mesh into the hernia sac and development of a seroma at the created “dead” space are the most common complications [1, 2, 5, 6].
The major goal of any ventral or incisional hernia repair is to restore the integrity of the abdominal wall anatomy and unify of the rectus muscles.
36
repair, by closing the defect with two options: running suture intra-abdominally or interrupted transfascial suture transab­dominally [1].
The robotic approach allows smoother intracorporeal sutur­ing of the fascia allowing primary repair, improved physiologi­cal abdominal wall movements, and greater overlap of the mesh surrounding the defect’s edges. Robotic ventral hernia repair also offers enhanced suturing options under excellent visualization for repair of difficult hernias with bony margins, such as lumbar, suprapubic, and subcostal hernias [79].
The IPOM-Plus technique can reduce the hernia size to zero, eliminating bulging, decreasing the rate of seromas, and reducing the patient’s discomfort [1, 2]. It also has recur- rence rates compared with classical IPOM, mimicking open repair [1, 5].
Limitations of this technique are clear. Large defects are not feasible to close without tension. Occasionally a combina­tion with the endoscopic components separation technique or a transversus abdominal release [10] may be needed to lower the tension and enable the closure [2, 4]. Other challenges include trocar placement, instrument collisions, difficulty with angulations, and removal of soft tissue when indicated [4].

36.3 Surgical Technique

36.3.1 Patient Positioning

36.2 Definition
IPOM-Plus repair, as described in the guidelines for laparo­scopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias of the International Endohernia Society, is a superior
For the procedure, the patient is given general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Intravenous prophylactic anti­biotics are given. The patient is placed in the supine position with the arms tucked laterally on the side.

36.3.2 Trocar Placement

E. Parra-Dávila, M.D., F.A.C.S., F.A.S.C.R.S. (*) E.J.V. Rubalcava, M.D. • C. Hartmann, M.D., F.A.C.S. Celebration Center for Surgery, Florida Hospital Celebration, 410 Celebration Place, Suite 302, Celebration, FL 34747, USA e-mail: eparradavila@gmail.com
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 W.W. Hope et al. (eds.), Textbook of Hernia, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43045-4_36
Access to the peritoneal cavity is gained using a Veress nee­dle placed in the left upper quadrant subcostal region at the midclavicular line or an area where no previous surgeries are
273
274
E. Parra-Dávila et al.
noted in order to avoid adhesions. After adequate pneumo­peritoneum is established, a 5-mm optiview port is placed in the lateral position on the opposite side of the hernia. It is critical to place the ports as far from the defect as possible to allow for increased range of motion and effectiveness. Depending on the size of the abdomen, three or four robotic arms are used and additional placement of an assistant port is common. The most lateral position of the camera and two instrument arms will allow for full range of motion which facilitates dissection and suturing on the hernia defect. The accessory port is used to aid with the mesh introduction, trac­tion, suction, suture removal, and suture cutting.

36.3.3 Docking

Patient position manipulation must be performed prior to docking of the robot. The robotic cart is driven directly towards the abdomen and over the trocar sites. The robotic docking is done from the side of the hernia to align the center column of the robot with the target and the camera.

36.3.4 Adhesiolysis

Adhesiolysis of the abdominal wall to isolate the hernia defect must be performed meticulously so as to avoid iatro­genic injury to the abdominal viscera. For laparoscopic sur­gery lysis of adhesions is the most challenging, but the Da Vinci Surgical System platform facilitates adhesiolysis through its 3D visualization, extended range-of-motion, tremor-less precision, and superior ergonomics.
Complete adhesiolysis is mandatory to insure complete evaluation of the abdominal wall. If necessary, the falciform ligament is taken down to allow the placement of mesh against the abdominal wall. In the setting of dense adhesions the robotic harmonic scalpel or Da Vinci vessel sealer may facilitate hemostasis.
The fascial sutures encompass 1-cm bites of fascia, minimiz­ing trauma to the abdominal wall, the robotic platform allows the surgeon to take precise bites of tissue to anchor the mesh repair. Successful primary closure of the defect is facilitated by the use of the barbed V-loc suture (Covidien) or Stratafix suture (Ethicon).
The suture is introduced into the intra-abdominal cavity through the 8 mm dV trocar or the accessory port. By open­ing and bending the needle slightly will facilitate both intro­duction and subsequent removal of the suture will accomplish this if an 8 mm trocar is used.
36.4.1 Placement of Mesh with Running
Suture
After choosing the size of the mesh, it is rolled and prepared to be inserted into the peritoneal cavity. Once inside, it is unrolled and oriented. With the mesh positioned on the abdominal wall by using a scroll technique or by using a self­expanding mesh device (Echo mesh, Bard), it should be fix­ated by the use of a full length nonabsorbable monofilament suture (00 or 0). The suture is introduced into the intra­abdominal cavity through the trocar of the needle holder. Because the mesh is placed during full insufflation, it is likely that as the abdomen is desufflated the mesh will loosen a bit. A tacking device or sutures or a self-expanding mesh maybe used to place the mesh to the anterior abdominal wall.
In a running fashion, the suture is then placed around the circumference of the mesh. It may be necessary to use a few more sutures for larger prosthetics.

36.4.2 Closure of the Port Defects

Upon completion of mesh fixation, the robot is undocked. Only the assist 10–12 mm trocar fascial sites are closed with a suture passer under direct laparoscopic vision.

36.4 Closure of the Defect

The entire repair is performed under direct visualization, with precise placement and confirmation of depth into the posterior fascia for all sutures placed. The ability to primar­ily close defects without component separation is based on the principles of Ramirez regarding width and location of the hernia defect [11]. Of course this is based on open technique and not working against the forces of pneumoperitoneum. As a general rule, less than 10 cm wide defect is amenable to primary closure but also depends on body habitus, age, and abdominal wall compliance. Desufflating the abdominal cavity to 6–8 mmHg pneumoperitoneum may be necessary.

36.5 The da Vinci Xi

With the new system the docking is simpler and is designed to be user friendly. It is guided by a “port placement menu” and a laser light for the best approach.
The patient can be repositioned safely without undocking when used with the new operating table, and the learning curve for this system appears to be shorter than anticipated.
This robot has smaller and thinner arms with newly flex joints that offer a wide range of motion than the earlier ver­sions making the reach of different areas of the abdomen easier. The Xi robot has been optimized for multi-quadrant surgical areas.
36 Robotic IPOM-Plus Repair
275
The scope can be placed into any of the four robotic arms with its autofocus reassigning the camera to a different port with utilization of the retargeting feature.
The laparoscope has a digital end mounted crystal-clear camera on the top of the scope for improved and better vision.
With the new system the double docking for larger hernias is easier since the robotic boom rotates 180° to accommodate to the other side without moving the patient or the column of the robot as in the components separation technique.
In summary, the new robot allows closer port placement, double docking without moving the patient or the operating room table by rotating the boom to the contralateral side and has more reach since the arms are longer than the previous versions.
Innovations of new surgical platforms will also improve ergonomics and efficiency in minimally invasive surgery.

36.6 Pearls

Reconstruction of the rectus muscle in robotic hernia repair improves the functionality of the abdominal wall.
Additional components separation facilitates the closure and should be used for larger defects.
Robotic ventral hernia repair facilitates the operator to offer traditional open repair techniques (Rives–Stoppa) through minimally invasive incisions.
The robotic approach visualizes the entire abdominal wall, thus detecting any impalpable hernia defect that also may be repaired at the same time. The successful primary closure of the defect is facilitated by the three-dimensional imaging and superior ergonomics.

References

1. Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U. Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))—Part 1. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:2–29.
2. Orenstein SB, Dumeer JL, Monteagudo J. Outcomes of laparo­scopic ventral hernia repair with routine defect closure using “shoe­lacing” technique. Surg Endosc. 2010;25(5):1452–7. doi:10.1007/
s00464-010-1413-3.
3. Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, et al. Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair in 407 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190:645–50.
4. Vasilescu D, Paun S. Surgical treatment of parietal defects with “da Vinci” surgical robot. J Med Life. 2012;5(2):232–8.
5. Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U. Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society [IEHS])—Part III. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:380–404.
6. Earle D, Seymour N, Fellinger E, et al. Laparoscopic versus open incisional hernia repair: a single-institution analysis of hospital resource utilization for 884 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:71–5; World J Surg. (2012) 36:447–452 451 123.
7. Schluender S, Conrad J, Divino CM. Robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of ventral hernia with intracorporeal suturing. An experimen­tal study. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1391–5.
8. Ballantyne GH, Hourmont K, Wasielewski A. Telerobotic laparo­scopic repair of incisional ventral hernias using intraperitoneal prosthetic mesh. JSLS. 2003;7:7–14.
9. Tayar C, Karoui M, Cherqui D, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic mesh repair of incisional hernias with exclusive intracorporeal suturing: a pilot study. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1786–9.
10. Novitsky YW, Elliott HL, Orenstein SB, et al. Transversus abdomi­nis muscle release: a novel approach to posterior component sepa­ration during complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg. 2012;204:709–16.
11. Ramirez OM, Ruas E, Dellon AL. “Components separation” method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;86:519–26.

Laparoscopic Closure of Defect

Sean B. Orenstein

37.1 Introduction

While both open and laparoscopic techniques allow success­ful ventral herniorrhaphy, there are distinct advantages to minimally invasive approaches. Benefits of laparoscopic ven­tral hernia repair (LVHR) include reduced wound morbidity including infection, quicker return of bowel function, reduced length of stay, and improved cosmesis [15]. Many consider restoration of an intact midline linea alba to be crucial for a successful repair in open approaches; however, this philoso­phy has not become standard practice for laparoscopic repairs. Commonly, LVHR are performed with mesh placed as an underlay, essentially bridging one or multiple defects. In an effort to provide a more durable repair, laparoscopic defect closures have been implemented to create a more functional repair by combining primary defect closure along with mesh reinforcement. Thus, laparoscopic defect closure combines attributes more aligned with traditional open repairs, while still preserving the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

37.2 Concept of Defect Closure

37.2.1 Abdominal Wall Mechanics

Laparoscopic VHR traditionally involves reduction of hernia contents followed by placement of a large mesh prosthetic in an underlay fashion, thereby bridging the defect. While this may be successful for some repairs it has the potential to put undo tension and shear force at the hernia repair site. Such tension can result in mesh “eventration,” whereby the mesh gets pushed up through the unclosed hernia defect with resul-
S.B. Orenstein, M.D. (*) Department of Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, L223A, Portland, OR 97239, USA e-mail: orenstei@ohsu.edu
37
tant hernia recurrence. Adequate transfascial mesh fixation may prevent mesh eventration; however, even with wide mesh overlap and suture fixation, the Law of LaPlace (T = P × R/W) dictates that there will be increased tension on the mesh directly underneath the unclosed defect [69] (Fig. 37.1). With intra-abdominal pressure being equal throughout the abdomen (Pascal’s Principle), the Law of LaPlace has great potential to assist with hernia repairs utilizing underlay and sublay mesh placement by keeping the mesh pressed up against the abdom­inal wall or preperitoneal inguinal sites. However, this benefit can dramatically turn against us and negatively affect sites directly under unclosed hernia defects. The only way to equal­ize the tension on the abdominal wall is to close the areas with greater radius, i.e., the hernia defects.
The concept of defect closure may be more important now, given the severe rise in obesity. Increased abdominal mass and girth lead to increased intra-abdominal pressure in obese patients. Abdominal wall thickness affects tension, with a thin­ner walled region above the hernia defect resulting in increased tension at that site. Additionally, differing abdominal wall thickness adjacent to hernia defects may lead to shear stress transmitted to the mesh as a result of abrupt tension changes within the vicinity of defects. Thus, the increased width (radius), wall thickness, and pressure will lead to unfavorable physical dynamics at sites of abdominal wall defects, possibly leading to worse outcomes following traditional LVHR with bridging as our population continues to increase in size.

37.2.2 Functional and Dynamic Repair

One of the key goals of abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) is medialization of the rectus abdominis muscles by restoring the linea alba, the major insertion point of abdominal wall musculature [10, 11]. By restoring the native anatomy, a more functional and dynamic abdominal wall is likely to be created. This is routinely discussed for open VHR; however, there is limited discussion for laparoscopic repairs. Bridging has been shown to significantly increase the risk for hernia recurrence
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 W.W. Hope et al. (eds.), Textbook of Hernia, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43045-4_37
277
278
Wall thickness (W)
)
Wall tension (T)
S.B. Orenstein
Internal pressure (P)
Fig. 37.1 Law of LaPlace. A simplified equation for LaPlace’s law is T = P × R/W, whereby T is the tension exerted on the abdominal wall; P is the intra-abdominal pressure, which, according to Pascal’s principle, is equal throughout the abdominal cylinder or sphere; R is the radius; W is the wall thickness
Radius (R
as well as quicker progression to recurrence for open repairs [12]. If it makes sense to restore the abdominal wall to a more native and functional level in open repairs, then why not use the same philosophy for laparoscopic repairs? As already dis­cussed, traditional LVHR typically relies on the support of a bridged defect with mesh prosthetic, which may be detrimen­tal to the patient. Mesh bridging may result in regions of fric­tion and shear force at the edges of the defect with excessive pressure centrally, leading to mesh instability, stretching of the sutures causing increased postoperative pain, as well as bulg­ing [13]. Additionally, without direct contact between the anterior abdominal wall and the mesh there can be no ingrowth at sites of hernia defects. Closing the defect not only leads to equalization of tension along the mesh and abdominal wall, but also allows complete incorporation of the mesh prosthetic for a more durable repair.
primary fascial closure along with prosthetic mesh reinforce­ment. Recurrence rates for primary closure alone in open repairs are substantial, with recurrences seen in 18–63 %. The use of mesh has markedly reduced recurrence rates down to 2–32 % [1418], thus making mesh reinforcement a necessary element of successful repairs, be it open or laparo­scopic repair. However, even with mesh placement and rou­tine trans-abdominal fixation significant tension may still exist along the primary fascial closure site. As discussed in our initial experience with defect “shoelacing” because of the increased tension on the fascial closure, additional trans­abdominal sutures are placed to off-load some of that tension [19]. By placing interrupted buttressing sutures on either side of the shoelace closure, tension is transferred from the closed repair to the mesh itself. Importantly, while some sur­geons argue for double-crown tacking as the sole source of fixation during LVHR, this would not be sufficient for lapa-
Laparoscopic defect closure combines the components of
roscopic defect closure, as trans-abdominal fixation remains an essential component for defect closure repairs to off-load tension from the closed defect.

37.3 Advantages of Defect Closure

Because defect closure reduces the hernia width a smaller mesh can theoretically be used. A generous overlap of at least a 5 cm is still recommended. Therefore, with defect clo­sure at least a 10–12 cm wide mesh is still required. Reduced implanted foreign body theoretically reduces fibrosis, scar plate formation, and visceral exposure to synthetic materials, all of which may impact patients’ symptoms and mobility. While it is unclear what the true clinical significance in the long term is as there is limited data thus far, this author strives to use only what is necessary when it comes to implanted foreign bodies.
The benefit of reduced recurrence rate has not been com­pletely elucidated for laparoscopic defect closure due to the lack of any randomized trials and only a small number of comparative studies, however, recent data is encouraging. In their review paper of the 11 studies involving LVHR with defect closure Nguyen et al. describe recurrence rates of 0–7.7 % [20]. Three of those studies retrospectively com­pared closure vs. nonclosure and discovered significant reductions in recurrence rates, with recurrence rates of 0–5.7 % for defect closure, compared to a range of 4.8–16.7 % for traditional bridged LVHR [2123]. Newer retrospective studies display conflicting results for laparoscopic defect clo­sure, with one study demonstrating favorable recurrence and wound morbidity in a large cohort of 1326 patients [24], while another study showed similar results in groups with or without defect closure [25].
37 Laparoscopic Closure of Defect
Additional benefits of laparoscopic defect closure are based on obliteration of the dead space that is typically present in traditional bridged LVHRs. Reduction of the dead space results in decreased seromas and potential infectious complications of seromas. We previously described our cohort of 47 patients that underwent laparoscopic shoelace closure, none of whom returned with seroma or hernia recurrence [19]. Likewise, all other studies with the exception of one demonstrate low seroma rates, ranging from 0 to 11.4 % [20]. Comparatively, LVHR without defect closure results in seroma rates of up to 32 %, though many are not clinically significant [20, 26].
Additionally, if wound infections should arise requiring wound opening or if the skin dehisces, defect closure pro­vides an additional barrier of tissue above the mesh, thus limiting mesh exposure and possible contamination or infec­tion. Finally, defect closure may offer a cosmetic advantage in the long term. While initial postoperative wounds tend to demonstrate bunched up tissue under the skin, the lax tissues anterior to the defect tend to tighten up as myofibroblast con­traction takes place, resulting in a reduction in subjective bulging and more cosmetically appealing repair.

37.4 Disadvantages of Defect Closure

Any technique that is novel or without randomized trials has its potential shortcomings, and not every patient is a candidate for laparoscopic defect closure. First, defect closure can result in significant fascial tension. While trans-abdominal buttressing sutures are routinely placed to offload tension onto the mesh for larger defects, closure of abdominal wall defects without significant laxity may result in excessive tension. This fascial strain may result in fascial dehiscence and possible hernia recurrence if insufficient mesh overlap exists. Also, because of the increased need for permanent trans- abdominal sutures there lies a greater risk for suture granuloma formation and possible suture abscess. It is, therefore, important to ensure all sutures are tied down appropriately and buried deeply within the sub­cutaneous tissue to reduce abscesses. Cosmetically, initial post­operative wounds may display signs of bunched up tissue over the repair. As discussed above, while this typically flattens out over time, it should be noted cosmetic benefits might not be apparent for weeks to months following repair.
Intraoperatively, there is an increased risk of bowel injury, as viscera can become entrapped within the hernia sac and sutures. Astute attention is required to reduce visceral entrap­ment. One of the possible strategies is to tie the knots down under direct visualization using low insufflation pressures. Finally, defect closure can result in significant postoperative pain as a result of fascial tightening as well as additional trans-abdominal sutures. Therefore, adequate multimodal analgesia is an essential part of postoperative management. Except for small defects, patients are routinely admitted for at least one night to ensure adequate pulmonary function and sufficient pain control prior to discharge.
279

37.5 Patient Selection

The size, quality, and location of the defect greatly determine whether laparoscopic repair with or without defect closure is feasible. In general, if the defect is too large or complex for defect closure then other means of repair should be strongly considered, including traditional (bridged) LVHR or open her­nia repair. While there is no strict cutoff for width of defect able to be closed, I routinely close defects up to 6 cm in width and selectively for defects 6–8 cm. Large, multiple Swiss cheese defects or those with poor tissue integrity should be considered for traditional LVHR without defect closure or open repair.
Hernia location is another determination for defect closure. Flank hernias may be amenable to defect closure; however, care must be taken to avoid entrapment of neurologic struc­tures and to secure the mesh appropriately with adequate over­lap which may require bone anchors for secure fixation. Parastomal hernias can be repaired utilizing a Sugarbaker technique, using defect closure as an adjunct with LVHR. In this setting, the defect size is reduced enough to allow ade­quate room for bowel prior to placement of mesh. On the other hand, defects close to bony prominences such as subxiphoid defects may not be amenable to defect closure due to their proximity to the xiphoid process and costal margin, resulting in an inability to adequately reapproximate the fascial edges as well as risk injury to neurovascular structures. Suprapubic defects may be amenable to defect closure, provided there is adequate fascial tissue above the pubic bone. Very low supra­pubic defects immediately adjacent to the pubis may not be amenable to defect closure, and may require a bridged repair.
37.6 Laparoscopic Defect Closure
Technique
• Setup: Laparoscopic defect closure employs a combina-
tion of primary fascial closure of the hernia sites along
with mesh prosthetic placement for reinforcement. The
case is initiated using standard LVHR technique.
Positioning the patient supine with arms tucked aids in
adhesiolysis and tacking from various angles around the
patient. For suprapubic or low midline defects a three-
way Foley catheter is placed preoperatively for instilla-
tion of saline to assist in bladder identification. An
iodine-impregnated plastic skin wrap is routinely placed
to reduce skin flora contamination and to assist with
external marking.
• Access: Access is typically achieved using optical trocar
entry via left upper quadrant subcostal entry. 5-mm
accessory trocars are placed under direct visualization,
with eventual bilateral trocar placement after sufficient
adhesiolysis. Eventually, a 12-mm trocar is placed to
allow for mesh insertion. This trocar is placed in an area
that will eventually be covered by mesh, typically as