Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic versus hybrid approach for treatment of incisional ventral hernia: a prospective randomized multicenter study of 1-month follow-up results

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Comment to this article was published on 22 August 2018

Abstract

Purpose

The seroma rate following laparoscopic incisional ventral hernia repair (LIVHR) is up to 78%. LIVHR is connected to a relatively rare but dangerous complication, enterotomy, especially in cases with complex adhesiolysis. Closure of the fascial defect and extirpation of the hernia sack may reduce the risk of seromas and other hernia-site events. Our aim was to evaluate whether hybrid operation has a lower rate of the early complications compared to the standard LIVHR.

Methods

This is a multicenter randomized-controlled clinical trial. From November 2012 to May 2015, 193 patients undergoing LIVHR for primary incisional hernia with fascial defect size from 2 to 7 cm were recruited in 11 Finnish hospitals. Patients were randomized to either a laparoscopic (LG) or to a hybrid (HG) repair group. The outcome measures were the incidence of clinically and radiologically detected seromas and their extent 1 month after surgery, peri/postoperative complications, and pain.

Results

Bulging was observed by clinical evaluation in 46 (49%) LG patients and in 27 (31%) HG patients (p = 0.022). Ultrasound examination detected more seromas (67 vs. 45%, p = 0.004) and larger seromas (471 vs. 112 cm3, p = 0.025) after LG than after HG. In LG, there were 5 (5.3%) enterotomies compared to 1 (1.1%) in HG (p = 0.108). Adhesiolysis was more complex in LG than in HG (26.6 vs. 13.3%, p = 0.028). Patients in HG had higher pain scores on the first postoperative day (VAS 5.2 vs. 4.3, p = 0.019).

Conclusion

Closure of the fascial defect and extirpation of the hernia sack reduce seroma formation. In hybrid operations, the risk of enterotomy seems to be lower than in laparoscopic repair, which should be considered in cases with complex adhesions.

Clinical trial number

NCT02542085.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Awaiz A, Rahman F, Hossain MB, Yunus RM, Khan S, Memon B, Memon MA (2015) Meta-analysis and systematic review of laparoscopic versus open mesh repair for elective incisional hernia. Hernia

  2. Rogmark P, Petersson U, Bringman S, Eklund A, Ezra E, Sevonius D, Smedberg S, Osterberg J, Montgomery A (2013) Short-term outcomes for open and laparoscopic midline incisional hernia repair: a randomized multicenter controlled trial: the ProLOVE (prospective randomized trial on open versus laparoscopic operation of ventral eventrations) trial. Ann Surg 258:37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U, Fabian M, Ferzli GS, Fortelny RH, Kockerling F, Kukleta J, Leblanc K, Lomanto D, Misra MC, Bansal VK, Morales-Conde S, Ramshaw B, Reinpold W, Rim S, Rohr M, Schrittwieser R, Simon T, Smietanski M, Stechemesser B, Timoney M, Chowbey P, International Endohernia Society (IEHS) (2014) Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS)-part 1. Surg Endosc 28:2–29

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sauerland S, Walgenbach M, Habermalz B, Seiler CM, Miserez M (2011) Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD007781

  5. ten Broek RP, Schreinemacher MH, Jilesen AP, Bouvy N, Bleichrodt RP, van Goor H (2012) Enterotomy risk in abdominal wall repair: a prospective study. Ann Surg 256:280–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahonen-Siirtola M, Rautio T, Ward J, Kossi J, Ohtonen P, Makela J (2015) Complications in Laparoscopic Versus Open Incisional Ventral Hernia Repair. A Retrospective Comparative Study. World J Surg 39:2872–2877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. LeBlanc KA, Elieson MJ, Corder JM III (2007) Enterotomy and mortality rates of laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair: a review of the literature. JSLS 11:408–414

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Tandon A, Pathak S, Lyons NJ, Nunes QM, Daniels IR, Smart NJ (2016) Meta-analysis of closure of the fascial defect during laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair. Br J Surg 103:1598–1607

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Morales-Conde S (2012) A new classification for seroma after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Hernia 16:261–267

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Edwards C, Angstadt J, Whipple O, Grau R (2005) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: postoperative antibiotics decrease incidence of seroma-related cellulitis. Am Surg 71:931–935; discussion 935-6

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sodergren MH, Swift I (2010) Seroma formation and method of mesh fixation in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair–highlights of a case series. Scand J Surg 99:24–27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Banerjee A, Beck C, Narula VK, Linn J, Noria S, Zagol B, Mikami DJ (2012) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: does primary repair in addition to placement of mesh decrease recurrence? Surg Endosc 26:1264–1268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Palanivelu C, Rangarajan M, Parthasarathi R, Madankumar M,V, Senthilkumar K Laparoscopic repair of suprapubic incisional hernias: suturing and intraperitoneal composite mesh onlay. A retrospective study

  14. Chelala E, Gaede F, Douillez V, Dessily M, Alle JL (2003) The suturing concept for laparoscopic mesh fixation in ventral and incisional hernias: preliminary results. Hernia 7:191–196

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nguyen DH, Nguyen MT, Askenasy EP, Kao LS, Liang MK (2014) Primary Fascial Closure With Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: Systematic Review. World J Surg

  16. Booth JH, Garvey PB, Baumann DP, Selber JC, Nguyen AT, Clemens MW, Liu J, Butler CE (2013) Primary fascial closure with mesh reinforcement is superior to bridged mesh repair for abdominal wall reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg 217:999–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Light D, Bawa S (2016) Trans-fascial closure in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 30:5228–5231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chelala E, Barake H, Estievenart J, Dessily M, Charara F, Alle JL (2015) Long-term outcomes of 1326 laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair with the routine suturing concept: a single institution experience. Hernia

  20. Susmallian S, Gewurtz G, Ezri T, Charuzi I (2001) Seroma after laparoscopic repair of hernia with PTFE patch: is it really a complication? Hernia 5:139–141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mercoli H, Tzedakis S, D’Urso A, Nedelcu M, Memeo R, Meyer N, Vix M, Perretta S, Mutter D (2017) Postoperative complications as an independent risk factor for recurrence after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a prospective study of 417 patients with long-term follow-up. Surg Endosc 31:1469–1477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stoikes N, Quasebarth M, Brunt LM (2013) Hybrid ventral hernia repair: technique and results. Hernia 17:627–632

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahonen-Siirtola M, Rautio T, Biancari F, Ohtonen P, Makela J (2017) Laparoscopic versus Hybrid Approach for Treatment of Incisional Ventral Hernia. Dig Surg

  24. Eker HH, Hansson BM, Buunen M, Janssen IM, Pierik RE, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2013) Laparoscopic vs. open incisional hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 148:259–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang Y, Zhou H, Chai Y, Cao C, Jin K, Hu Z (2014) Laparoscopic Versus Open Incisional and Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. World J Surg 38:2233–2240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Itani KM, Hur K, Kim LT, Anthony T, Berger DH, Reda D, Neumayer L, Veterans Affairs Ventral Incisional Hernia Investigators (2010) Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair with mesh for the treatment of ventral incisional hernia: a randomized trial. Arch Surg 145:322–328; discussion 328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Warren JA, Cobb WS, Ewing JA, Carbonell AM (2017) Standard laparoscopic versus robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 31:324–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gonzalez A, Escobar E, Romero R, Walker G, Mejias J, Gallas M, Dickens E, Johnson CJ, Rabaza J, Kudsi OY (2017) Robotic-assisted ventral hernia repair: a multicenter evaluation of clinical outcomes. Surg Endosc 31:1342–1349

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, PL 21, 90029, Oulu, Finland

    M. Ahonen-Siirtola, P. Ohtonen, J. Mäkelä & T. Rautio

  2. Department of Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland

    T. Nevala

  3. Department of Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    J. Vironen & U. Keränen

  4. Department of Surgery, Päijät-Häme Central Hospital, Lahti, Finland

    J. Kössi & J. Ward

  5. Department of Surgery, Seinäjoki Central Hospital, Seinäjoki, Finland

    T. Pinta

  6. Department of Surgery, Valkeakoski Regional Hospital, Valkeakoski, Finland

    S. Niemeläinen

  7. Department of Surgery, Kymenlaakso Central Hospital, Kotka, Finland

    P. Vento

  8. Department of Surgery, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland

    J. Karvonen

Authors
  1. M. Ahonen-Siirtola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Nevala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Vironen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Kössi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. Pinta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Niemeläinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. U. Keränen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. Ward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. P. Vento
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. J. Karvonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. P. Ohtonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. J. Mäkelä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. T. Rautio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Ahonen-Siirtola: conception and design of the study, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, and writing the article. Nevala: design of the study, acquisition of data, writing the article, and critical revision. Vironen: design of the study, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, and critical revision. Kössi: design of the study, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, and critical revision. Pinta: design of the study, acquisition of data, and critical revision. Niemeläinen: design of the study, acquisition of data, and critical revision. Keränen: design of the study, acquisition of data, and critical revision. Ward: design of the study, acquisition of data, and critical revision. Vento: design of the study, acquisition of data, and critical revision. Karvonen: design of the study, acquisition of data, and critical revision. Ohtonen: design of the study, analysis and interpretation of data, writing the article, and critical revision. Mäkelä: conception and design of the study, and critical revision. Rautio: conception and design of the study, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, and writing the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Ahonen-Siirtola.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors MAS, TN, JV, TP, SN, UK, JW, PV, JK, PO, JM, and TR declare no conflict of interest. Author JK declares conflict of interest not directly related to the submitted work (one lecturing fee from Medtronic, not related to the submitted work).

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahonen-Siirtola, M., Nevala, T., Vironen, J. et al. Laparoscopic versus hybrid approach for treatment of incisional ventral hernia: a prospective randomized multicenter study of 1-month follow-up results. Hernia 22, 1015–1022 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-018-1784-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-018-1784-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation