RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: It is not yet clearly known whether laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) is superior to the open approach in recurrent hernias. The aim of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic technique for ventral hernias and investigate whether these outcomes are affected by the number of previous failed repairs. METHODS: Data from 124 consecutive patients who underwent LVHR using a standardized technique between September 2007 and June 2014 were collected prospectively. In all repairs, a composite prosthesis was tailored to overlap the defect by at least 5 cm and fixed with a double crown of spiral tacks. Clinical follow-up visits were performed at 1 week, 1, 6, and 12 months, and yearly thereafter. Patients were classified in 3 groups (0, 1, and ≥ 2) according to the number of previous hernia repairs for further statistical analysis. RESULTS: Long-term surveillance was available in 116 (93%) patients. Of these, 96 (82.8%) were recurrent hernias. There were 2 (1.7%) conversions, both in recurrent cases, and in 3 (2.6%) patients a hybrid access was used. Mean operating time was 55 min. There was an overall postoperative complication rate of 16%, with no mortality. During a mean follow-up of 30 (range 20-90) months, 3 (2.6%) recurrences were diagnosed 6, 8, and 9 months after surgery, respectively. A univariate analysis related to demographic, clinical, and perioperative variables did not find any significant relationship between the number of previous recurrences and operating time, conversion rate, hospital length of stay, overall morbidity, or recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that laparoscopic approach in recurrent incisional hernias is a safe and feasible alternative to open techniques. Furthermore, our experience supports the idea that LVHR may be the best option for recurrent cases in properly selected patients, independently of the number of previous recurrences.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been speculation about the possibility of fusing intestinal tissue using bipolar sealing devices. In this study we compare in a porcine model the anastomoses created using the LigaSure(®) device with those created with a stapler after section and closure of a rectal stump. METHODS: Thirty pigs underwent laparoscopic colorectal anastomosis. In group A (n = 15), the division of the intestine and distal stump closure were done with a 10-mm LigaSure Atlas(®) device. In group B, these steps were carried out using an endoscopic stapler. Subsequently, the colorectal anastomosis was performed using circular stapling in both groups. The 4-week follow-up included health status, weight gain, blood tests, X-rays, and colonoscopy. Anastomotic tissue was processed to study the mechanical tensile strength and histopathology. RESULTS: There was no difference in the rate of conversion to open surgery or in average operating time between the groups. In the sealing device group, there was a significantly higher rate of failure in rectal stump closure (p = 0.042). There was one death in group B due to anastomotic leak. There was no difference in adhesion formation or stenosis. Mid-section anastomosis area was 89.7 mm(2) in group A compared with 100 mm(2) in group B (p = 0.52). In tensile strength studies, the maximum load resisted by the sample was 13.8 ± 4.9 N (group A) versus 15.7 ± 4.4 N (group B) (p = 0.17). There was no difference between the groups in degree of reepithelialization, number of inflammatory cells, or the presence of microabscesses. CONCLUSIONS: Division and sealing of the rectal stump with the LigaSure(®) device is feasible in the proposed experimental model, but it is less reliable than conventional closure with a stapler, since it has a significantly greater failure rate. Therefore, The LigaSure(®) device should not be used for this purpose in the clinical setting as this could lead to serious and dramatic complications.

Asunto(s)