Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (8)
Document Type
- Journal article (8)
Language
- English (8)
Keywords
- evidence-based medicine (3)
- guidelines (3)
- indication for surgery (3)
- laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (3)
- perioperative management (3)
- giant ventral hernia (2)
- laparostomy (2)
- open abdomen (2)
- synthetic mesh (2)
- vacuum conditioning (2)
BACKGROUND:
Although the repair of ventral abdominal wall hernias is one of the most commonly performed operations, many aspects of their treatment are still under debate or poorly studied. In addition, there is a lack of good definitions and classifications that make the evaluation of studies and meta-analyses in this field of surgery difficult.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Under the auspices of the board of the European Hernia Society and following the previously published classifications on inguinal and on ventral hernias, a working group was formed to create an online platform for registration and outcome measurement of operations for ventral abdominal wall hernias. Development of such a registry involved reaching agreement about clear definitions and classifications on patient variables, surgical procedures and mesh materials used, as well as outcome parameters. The EuraHS working group (European registry for abdominal wall hernias) comprised of a multinational European expert panel with specific interest in abdominal wall hernias. Over five working group meetings, consensus was reached on definitions for the data to be recorded in the registry.
RESULTS:
A set of well-described definitions was made. The previously reported EHS classifications of hernias will be used. Risk factors for recurrences and co-morbidities of patients were listed. A new severity of comorbidity score was defined. Post-operative complications were classified according to existing classifications as described for other fields of surgery. A new 3-dimensional numerical quality-of-life score, EuraHS-QoL score, was defined. An online platform is created based on the definitions and classifications, which can be used by individual surgeons, surgical teams or for multicentre studies. A EuraHS website is constructed with easy access to all the definitions, classifications and results from the database.
CONCLUSION:
An online platform for registration and outcome measurement of abdominal wall hernia repairs with clear definitions and classifications is offered to the surgical community. It is hoped that this registry could lead to better evidence-based guidelines for treatment of abdominal wall hernias based on hernia variables, patient variables, available hernia repair materials and techniques.
Background
Although the repair of ventral abdominal wall hernias is one of the most commonly performed operations, many aspects of their treatment are still under debate or poorly studied. In addition, there is a lack of good definitions and classifications that make the evaluation of studies and meta-analyses in this field of surgery difficult.
Materials and methods
Under the auspices of the board of the European Hernia Society and following the previously published classifications on inguinal and on ventral hernias, a working group was formed to create an online platform for registration and outcome measurement of operations for ventral abdominal wall hernias. Development of such a registry involved reaching agreement about clear definitions and classifications on patient variables, surgical procedures and mesh materials used, as well as outcome parameters. The EuraHS working group (European registry for abdominal wall hernias) comprised of a multinational European expert panel with specific interest in abdominal wall hernias. Over five working group meetings, consensus was reached on definitions for the data to be recorded in the registry.
Results
A set of well-described definitions was made. The previously reported EHS classifications of hernias will be used. Risk factors for recurrences and co-morbidities of patients were listed. A new severity of comorbidity score was defined. Post-operative complications were classified according to existing classifications as described for other fields of surgery. A new 3-dimensional numerical quality-of-life score, EuraHS-QoL score, was defined. An online platform is created based on the definitions and classifications, which can be used by individual surgeons, surgical teams or for multicentre studies. A EuraHS website is constructed with easy access to all the definitions, classifications and results from the database.
Conclusion
An online platform for registration and outcome measurement of abdominal wall hernia repairs with clear definitions and classifications is offered to the surgical community. It is hoped that this registry could lead to better evidence-based guidelines for treatment of abdominal wall hernias based on hernia variables, patient variables, available hernia repair materials and techniques.
Purpose
Once open abdomen therapy has succeeded, the problem of closing the abdominal wall must be addressed. We present a new four-stage procedure involving the application of a two-component mesh and vacuum conditioning for abdominal wall closure of even large defects. The aim is to prevent the development of a giant ventral hernia and the eventual need for the repair of the abdominal wall.
Methods
Nineteen of 62 patients treated by open abdomen over a two-year period could not receive primary abdominal wall closure. To achieve closure in these patients, we applied the following four-stage procedure: stage 1: abdominal damage control and conditioning of the abdominal wall; stage 2: attachment of a tailored two-component mesh of polyglycolic acid (PGA) and large pore polypropylene (PP) in intraperitoneal position (IPOM) plus placement of a vacuum bandage; stage 3: vacuum therapy for 3–4 weeks to allow granulation of the mesh and optimization of dermatotraction; stage 4: final skin suture. During stage 3, eligible patients were weaned from respirator and mobilized.
Results
The abdominal wall gap in the 19 patients ranged in size from 240 cm2 to more than 900 cm2. An average of 3.44 vacuum dressing changes over 19 days were required to achieve 60–100 % granulation of the surface area, so final skin suture could be made. Already in stage 3, 14 patients (73.68 %) could be weaned from respirator an average of 6.78 days after placement of the two-component mesh; 6 patients (31.57 %) could be mobilized on the edge of the bed and/or to a bedside chair after an average of 13 days. No mesh-related hematomas, seromas, or intestinal fistulas were observed.
Conclusion
The four-stage procedure presented here is a viable option for achieving abdominal wall closure in patients treated with open abdomen, enabling us to avoid the development of planned giant ventral hernias. It has few complications and has the special advantage of allowing mobilization of the patients before final skin closure. Long-term course in a large number of patients must still confirm this result.
Guidelines are increasingly determining the decision process in day-to-day clinical work. Guidelines describe the current best possible standard in diagnostics and therapy. They should be developed by an international panel of experts, whereby alongside individual experience, above all, the results of comparative studies are decisive. According to the results of high-ranking scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, statements and recommendations are formulated, and these are graded strictly according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines can therefore be valuable in helping particularly the young surgeon in his or her day-to-day work to find the best decision for the patient when confronted with a wide and confusing range of options. However, even experienced surgeons benefit because by virtue of a heavy workload and commitment, they often find it difficult to keep up with the ever-increasing published literature. All guidelines require regular updating, usually every 3 years, in line with progress in the field. The current Guidelines focus on technique and perioperative management of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and constitute the first comprehensive guidelines on this topic. In this issue of Surgical Endoscopy, the first part of the Guidelines is published including sections on basics, indication for surgery, perioperative management, and key points of technique. The next part (Part 2) of the Guidelines will address complications and comparisons between open and laparoscopic techniques. Part 3 will cover mesh technology, hernia prophylaxis, technique-related issues, new technologic developments, lumbar and other unusual hernias, and training/education.
Guidelines are increasingly determining the decision process in day-to-day clinical work. Guidelines describe the current best possible standard in diagnostics and therapy. They should be developed by an international panel of experts, whereby alongside individual experience, above all, the results of comparative studies are decisive. According to the results of high-ranking scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, statements and recommendations are formulated, and these are graded strictly according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines can therefore be valuable in helping particularly the young surgeon in his or her day-to-day work to find the best decision for the patient when confronted with a wide and confusing range of options. However, even experienced surgeons benefit because by virtue of a heavy workload and commitment, they often find it difficult to keep up with the ever-increasing published literature. All guidelines require regular updating, usually every 3 years, in line with progress in the field. The current Guidelines focus on technique and perioperative management of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and constitute the first comprehensive guidelines on this topic. In this issue of Surgical Endoscopy, the first part of the Guidelines is published including sections on basics, indication for surgery, perioperative management, and key points of technique. The next part (Part 2) of the Guidelines will address complications and comparisons between open and laparoscopic techniques. Part 3 will cover mesh technology, hernia prophylaxis, technique-related issues, new technologic developments, lumbar and other unusual hernias, and training/education.
Guidelines are increasingly determining the decision process in day-to-day clinical work. Guidelines describe the current best possible standard in diagnostics and therapy. They should be developed by an international panel of experts, whereby alongside individual experience, above all, the results of comparative studies are decisive. According to the results of high-ranking scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, statements and recommendations are formulated, and these are graded strictly according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine. Guidelines can therefore be valuable in helping particularly the young surgeon in his or her day-to-day work to find the best decision for the patient when confronted with a wide and confusing range of options. However, even experienced surgeons benefit because by virtue of a heavy workload and commitment, they often find it difficult to keep up with the ever-increasing published literature. All guidelines require regular updating, usually every 3 years, in line with progress in the field. The current Guidelines focus on technique and perioperative management of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair and constitute the first comprehensive guidelines on this topic. In this issue of Surgical Endoscopy, the first part of the Guidelines is published including sections on basics, indication for surgery, perioperative management, and key points of technique. The next part (Part 2) of the Guidelines will address complications and comparisons between open and laparoscopic techniques. Part 3 will cover mesh technology, hernia prophylaxis, technique-related issues, new technologic developments, lumbar and other unusual hernias, and training/education.
Purpose
Once open abdomen therapy has succeeded, the problem of closing the abdominal wall must be addressed. We present a new four-stage procedure involving the application of a two-component mesh and vacuum conditioning for abdominal wall closure of even large defects. The aim is to prevent the development of a giant ventral hernia and the eventual need for the repair of the abdominal wall.
Methods
Nineteen of 62 patients treated by open abdomen over a two-year period could not receive primary abdominal wall closure. To achieve closure in these patients, we applied the following four-stage procedure: stage 1: abdominal damage control and conditioning of the abdominal wall; stage 2: attachment of a tailored two-component mesh of polyglycolic acid (PGA) and large pore polypropylene (PP) in intraperitoneal position (IPOM) plus placement of a vacuum bandage; stage 3: vacuum therapy for 3–4 weeks to allow granulation of the mesh and optimization of dermatotraction; stage 4: final skin suture. During stage 3, eligible patients were weaned from respirator and mobilized.
Results
The abdominal wall gap in the 19 patients ranged in size from 240 cm2 to more than 900 cm2. An average of 3.44 vacuum dressing changes over 19 days were required to achieve 60–100 % granulation of the surface area, so final skin suture could be made. Already in stage 3, 14 patients (73.68 %) could be weaned from respirator an average of 6.78 days after placement of the two-component mesh; 6 patients (31.57 %) could be mobilized on the edge of the bed and/or to a bedside chair after an average of 13 days. No mesh-related hematomas, seromas, or intestinal fistulas were observed.
Conclusion
The four-stage procedure presented here is a viable option for achieving abdominal wall closure in patients treated with open abdomen, enabling us to avoid the development of planned giant ventral hernias. It has few complications and has the special advantage of allowing mobilization of the patients before final skin closure. Long-term course in a large number of patients must still confirm this result.
Background:
Until now there has been a reported lack of systematic reports and scientific evaluations of rescue missions during terror attacks. This however is urgently required in order to improve the performance of emergency medical services and to be able to compare different missions with each other. Aim of the presented work was to report the systematic evaluation and the lessons learned from the response to a terror attack that happened in Wuerzburg, Germany in 2016.
Methods:
A team of 14 experts developed a template of quality indicators and operational characteristics, which allow for the description, assessment and comparison of civil emergency rescue missions during mass killing incidents. The entire systematic evaluation process consisted of three main steps. The first step was the systematic data collection according to the quality indicators and operational characteristics. Second was the systematic stratification and assessment of the data. The last step was the prioritisation of the identified weaknesses and the definition of the lessons learned.
Results:
Five important “lessons learned” have been defined. First of all, a comprehensive concept for rescue missions during terror attacks is essential. Furthermore, the establishment of a defined high priority communication infrastructure between the different dispatch centres (“red phone”) is vital. The goal is to secure the continuity of information between a few well-defined individuals. Thirdly, the organization of the incident scene needs to be commonly decided and communicated between police, medical services and fire services during the mission. A successful mission tactic requires continuous flux of reports to the on-site command post. Therefore, a predefined and common communication infrastructure for all operational forces is a crucial point. Finally, all strategies need to be extensively trained before the real life scenario hits.
Conclusion:
According to a systematic evaluation, we defined the lessons learned from a terror attack in 2016. Further systematic reports and academic work surrounding life threatening rescue missions and mass killing incidents are needed in order to ultimately improve such mission outcomes. In the future, a close international collaboration might help to find the best database to report and evaluate major incidents but also mass killing events.