IntroductionWorldwide, more than 20 million patients undergo groin hernia repair annually. The many different approaches, treatment indications and a significant array of techniques for groin hernia repair warrant guidelines to standardize care, minimize complications, and improve results. The main goal of these guidelines is to improve patient outcomes, specifically to decrease recurrence rates and reduce chronic pain, the most frequent problems following groin hernia repair. They have been endorsed by all five continental hernia societies, the International Endo Hernia Society and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.MethodsAn expert group of international surgeons (the HerniaSurge Group) and one anesthesiologist pain expert was formed. The group consisted of members from all continents with specific experience in hernia-related research. Care was taken to include surgeons who perform different types of repair and had preferably performed research on groin hernia surgery. During the Group’s first meeting, evidence-based medicine (EBM) training occurred and 166 key questions (KQ) were formulated. EBM rules were followed in complete literature searches (including a complete search by The Dutch Cochrane database) to January 1, 2015 and to July 1, 2015 for level 1 publications. The articles were scored by teams of two or three according to Oxford, SIGN and Grade methodologies. During five 2-day meetings, results were discussed with the working group members leading to 136 statements and 88 recommendations. Recommendations were graded as “strong” (recommendations) or “weak” (suggestions) and by consensus in some cases upgraded. In the Results and summary section below, the term “should” refers to a recommendation. The AGREE II instrument was used to validate the guidelines. An external review was performed by three international experts. They recommended the guidelines with high scores.Results and summaryThe risk factors for inguinal hernia (IH) include: family history, previous contra-lateral hernia, male gender, age, abnormal collagen metabolism, prostatectomy, and low body mass index. Peri-operative risk factors for recurrence include poor surgical techniques, low surgical volumes, surgical inexperience and local anesthesia. These should be considered when treating IH patients. IH diagnosis can be confirmed by physical examination alone in the vast majority of patients with appropriate signs and symptoms. Rarely, ultrasound is necessary. Less commonly still, a dynamic MRI or CT scan or herniography may be needed. The EHS classification system is suggested to stratify IH patients for tailored treatment, research and audit. Symptomatic groin hernias should be treated surgically. Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic male IH patients may be managed with “watchful waiting” since their risk of hernia-related emergencies is low. The majority of these individuals will eventually require surgery; therefore, surgical risks and the watchful waiting strategy should be discussed with patients. Surgical treatment s...

No abstract

Purpose A classification for primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias is needed to allow comparison of publications and future studies on these hernias. It is important to know whether the populations described in different studies are comparable. Methods Several members of the EHS board and some invitees gathered for 2 days to discuss the development of an EHS classification for primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Results To distinguish primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias, a separate classification based on localisation and size as the major risk factors was proposed. Further data are needed to define the optimal size variable for classification of incisional hernias in order to distinguish subgroups with differences in outcome. Conclusions A classification for primary abdominal wall hernias and a division into subgroups for incisional Hernia (2009) 13:407-414 DOI 10.1007 abdominal wall hernias, concerning the localisation of the hernia, was formulated.

No abstract

In modern hernia surgery, there are two competing mesh concepts which often lead to controversial discussions, on the one hand the heavyweight small porous model and on the other, the lightweight large porous hypothesis. The present review illustrates the rationale of both mesh concepts and compares experimental data with the first clinical data available. In summary, the lightweight large porous mesh philosophy takes into consideration all of the recent data regarding physiology and mechanics of the abdominal wall and inguinal region. Furthermore, the new mesh concept reveals an optimized foreign body reaction based on reduced amounts of mesh material and, in particular, a significantly decreased surface area in contact with the recipient host tissues by the large porous model. Finally, recent data demonstrate that alterations in the extracellular matrix of hernia patients play a crucial role in the development of hernia recurrence. In particular, long-term recurrences months or years after surgery and implantation of mesh can be explained by the extracellular matrix hypothesis. However, if the altered extracellular matrix proves to be the weak area, the decisive question is whether the amount of material as well as mechanical and tensile strength of the surgical mesh are really of significant importance for the development of recurrent hernia. All experimental evidence and first clinical data indicate the superiority of the lightweight large porous mesh concept with regard to a reduced number of long-term complications and particularly, increased comfort and quality of life after hernia repair.