Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Mar;2(1):7-11.
doi: 10.4103/0972-9941.25670.

Controversies in laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia

Abeezar I Sarela  1
Affiliations

Controversies in laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia

Abeezar I Sarela. J Minim Access Surg. 2006 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Incisional hernias can be a significant problem after open abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LIHR) is conceptually appealing: a large, abdominal wall re-incision with potential wound-related ill effects is avoided and an intra-peritoneal onlay mesh is expected to provide security that is equivalent to open, retro-muscular mesh repair. As such, LIHR has gained substantial popularity despite sparse, randomised clinical data to compare with conventional, open repair.

Aim: To enumerate and discuss important, controversial issues in patient-selection, technique and early post-operative care for LIHR.

Materials and methods: Pragmatic summary of comprehensive review of English language literature, discussion with experts and personal experience.

Outcomes: SIX IMPORTANT AREAS OF SOME DISPUTE WERE IDENTIFIED: 1. Size of abdominal-wall defect that is suitable for LIHR: Generally, defect-diameter > 10 cm is better served by open retromuscular repair with tension-free re-approximation of the edges of the defect. 2. Extent of adhesiolysis: Complete division of adhesions to the anterior abdominal wall may identify sub-clinical "Swiss-cheese" defects but incurs some risk of additional complications. 3. Intra-operative recognition of enterotomy: Possible options are either laparoscopic suture of bowel injury and simultaneous completion of LIHR, or staged LIHR or conversion to open suture-repair. 4. Choice of mesh: "Composite" meshes are regarded as the current standard of care but there is paucity of data regarding potential dangers of intra-peritoneal polypropylene mesh. 5. Technique of mesh-fixation: Trans-parietal sutures are more secure than tacks, with limited data to correlate with post-operative pain. 6. Alarm over post-operative pain: Unlike other advanced laparoscopic operations, the specificity of pain as a marker of intra-abdominal sepsis after LIHR remains unclear.

Conclusion: Recognition of and attention to controversial issues will promote increased success of LIHR.

Keywords: Intra-peritoneal onlay mesh; composite mesh; dual-sided mesh; ventral hernia repair.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Sarela AI, Miner TJ, Karpeh MS, Coit DG, Jaques DP, Brennan MF. Clinical outcomes with laparoscopic stage M1, unresected gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2006;243:189–95. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sarela AI, Murphy I, Coit DG, Conlon KC. Metastasis to the adrenal gland: the emerging role of laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:1191–6. - PubMed
    1. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, de Lange DC, Braaksma MM, IJzermans JN, et al. A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:392–8. - PubMed
    1. Stoppa RE. The treatment of complicated groin and incisional hernias. World J Surg. 1989;13:545–54. - PubMed
    1. Wantz GE. Incisional hernioplasty with Mersilene. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991;172:129–37. - PubMed