Advertisement

The Most Important Clinical Trial in the Last 10 Years in Inguinal and Incisional Hernia Surgery

  • Lars Nannestad Jorgensen
  • Thue Bisgaard
Chapter

Abstract

Introduction: Despite an uninterrupted accumulation of scientific evidence within hernia surgery, only few results have proven exceptional originality through sustained clinical impact on decision-making and optimized surgical practice. From a surgical academic point of view, we found it worthy to outpoint one inguinal and one incisional hernia trial with outstanding international penetrance for hernia surgery and quality of treatment. Methods: Based on our personal opinion and consensus, we selected two papers published within the last 10 years. Our choice was based on exceptional originality, creativity, outstanding potential for clinical change of surgical practice to improve patient treatment, and cost-effectiveness rather than scientific methodology or journal impact factor. Results: Löfgren J et al. A randomized trial of low-cost mesh in groin hernia repair. N Engl J Med 2016;374:146–53. Motivation: Inguinal hernia disease is highly prevalent and often life-threatening condition in the third world where a conventional mesh repair is often impossible. The authors demonstrated in a randomized setting with an almost 100% 1-year follow-up for the first time safety, efficacy in terms of low recurrence, and enormous cost reduction in the use of sterilized mosquito net-based mesh compared with commercially available mesh material. Millbourn D et al. Effect of stitch length on wound complications after closure of midline incisions: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg 2009;144:1056–9. Motivation: Between 10% and 30% of patients develop an incisional hernia after open laparotomy. However, results after incisional hernia repair still leave much for improvement such as recurrence, morbidity, chronic pain, and socioeconomic costs. There are various surgical approaches to minimize the incidence of incisional hernia, but the presented small stitch technique for linea alba closure is perhaps the most simple and effective in this respect. Interestingly, this pioneer report has succeedingly been externally proven for its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in a large-scale randomized controlled trial. Conclusion: The two examples of pioneer studies represent original and cost-effective surgical groundbreaking scientific milestones for the benefit of surgical patients. Moreover, they serve as an example for academic surgeons that randomized evaluation of even simple surgical procedures may have scientific merit.

References

  1. 1.
    Sanders DL, Kingsnorth AN, Stephenson BM. Mosquito net mesh for abdominal wall hernioplasty: a comparison of material characteristics with commercial prosthetics. World J Surg. 2013;37:737–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stephenson BM, Kingsnorth AN. Inguinal hernioplasty using mosquito net mesh in low income countries: an alternative and cost effective prosthesis. BMJ. 2011;343:d7448.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Löfgren J, Nordin P, Ibingira C, Matovu A, Galiwango E, Wladis A. A randomized trial of low-cost mesh in groin hernia repair. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:146–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fink C, Baumann P, Wente MN, et al. Incisional hernia rate 3 years after midline laparotomy. Br J Surg. 2014;101:51–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bucknall TE, Cox PJ, Ellis H. Burst abdomen and incisional hernia: a prospective study of 1129 major laparotomies. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982;284:931–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meyhoff CS, Wetterslev J, Jorgensen LN, et al. Effect of high perioperative oxygen fraction on surgical site infection and pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery: the PROXI randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2009;302:1543–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sauerland S, Walgenbach M, Habermalz B, Seiler CM, Miserez M. Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CD007781.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gillion JF, Sanders D, Miserez M, Muysoms F. The economic burden of incisional ventral hernia repair: a multicentric cost analysis. Hernia. 2016;20:819–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Timmermans L, de Goede B, Eker HH, van Kempen BJ, Jeekel J, Lange JF. Meta-analysis of primary mesh augmentation as prophylactic measure to prevent incisional hernia. Dig Surg. 2013;30:401–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia. 2015;19:1–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Millbourn D, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Effect of stitch length on wound complications after closure of midline incisions: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg. 2009;144:1056–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW, et al. Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:1254–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Nannestad Jorgensen
    • 1
  • Thue Bisgaard
    • 2
  1. 1.Digestive Disease Center, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Gastrounit, Surgical Division, Centre of Surgical ResearchHvidovre Hospital, University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations