O41 PREDICTORS OF LOW QUALITY AFTER OPEN INGUINAL HERNIA REPAIR USING THE EURAHS-QOL SCORE: PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTRIC COHORT STUDY

Aim Evidence about factors influencing quality of life after inguinal hernia surgery is scarce. This study aimed to identify predictors of low Quality of Life (QoL) after open inguinal hernia repair, to guide practice and inform patients at high risk. Material and Methods Prospective multicentric cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing elective open inguinal hernia repair in Portuguese hospitals (October-December 2019). The primary outcome was Quality of Life at 3 months after surgery, using the EuraHS-QoL score (higher score correlates with lower QoL). Low QoL was defined as the higher EuraHS-QoL score tertile and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors. Results 893 patients were included from 33 hospitals. The majority were men (89.9% [800/891]), had unilateral hernias 88.7% (774/872) and the most common surgical technique was Lichtenstein’s repair (52.9% [472/893]). The median QoL score was 24 (IQR 10-40) before surgery and 2 (IQR 0-10) at 3 months after surgery, showing significant improvement (p < 0.001). After adjustment, low QoL at 3 months was associated with low preoperative QoL (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.21-2.57, p = 0.003), non-absorbable mesh fixation (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.12-2.41, p = 0.011), severe immediate postoperative pain (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.66-5.11, p < 0.001) and minor postoperative complications (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.30-3.84, p = 0.004). Conclusions This study supports the use of the EuraHS-QoL score preoperatively to inform consent. Although significant improvement in QoL is expected after surgery, high scores before surgery are associated with low postoperative QoL. Caution should be taken with non-absorbable mesh fixation and immediate postoperative pain control should be optimised.

P084 MESH USE IN THE UNITED STATES: MESH TYPES AND THEIR INDICATIONS

Aim Synthetic non-absorbable mesh repair is considered standard of care for most hernias in the United States (US). The introduction of biologic absorbable mesh in the 2000’s has changed this practice and now novel synthetic absorbable and hybrid meshes are available. We aim to describe US trends of mesh use. Material and Methods We surveyed the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database for all repairs using mesh from 2012 to 2021. Mesh types and indications were analysed. Results Among 47,555 patients who underwent hernia repair with mesh, the majority were with synthetic non-absorbable meshes (96%). Absorbable mesh was placed in 2,039 (4%) patients and included biologic absorbable (893, 44%), synthetic absorbable (1,070, 52%), and hybrid (76, 4%) meshes. Synthetic non-absorbable mesh use was significantly predominant in all wound classes, including dirty/contaminated wounds (P < 0.01) [Figure 1]. Over time, we noted a trend toward lower incidence of absorbable and hybrid mesh use, from 18% to 2% (P < 0.01). Interestingly, we noted a relative increase in annual incidence of absorbable and hybrid mesh use in clean wounds, from 20% to 63% (P < 0.01) [Figure 2]. Figure 1Mesh type used in each wound classFigure 2Absorbable mesh use in clean vs. not clean wounds. Conclusions In the United States, synthetic non-absorbable meshes are commonly used during hernia repairs in dirty and contaminated fields. At the same time, there is a significant increase in the use of absorbable and hybrid meshes in the repair of hernias with clean wound classification. The costs and long-term outcomes of such surgeon choices have yet to be validated.

P029 HOW DOES THE MADRID APPROACH WORK

Aim The Madrid APPROACH is the combination of an absorbable mesh and a permanent retromuscular mesh for the treatment of the complex abdominal wall problems. It has been controversial because of the need of two different meshes. We present a clinic case to show the utility of this technique and how it allows rebuilding the inguinal ligament. Material and Methods 78 years old woman who underwent a right ilioinguinal and obturatriz lymphadenectomy due to a melanoma. Incisional hernia fixed in 2018 with a retromuscular polyester mesh. New incisional iliac hernia (L3) over the right iliac vessels, with an absence of inguinal ligament, right rectus atrophy, and the previous mesh being part of the sac. Surgery: incision over the previous scar. Wide dissection of the preperitoneal space, Retzius space and lateral to the cuadratus lumborum, retrodiafragmatic dissection, lateral transverse abdominus release, and cross-over to the retrorectal left space. Preperitoneal BioA mesh and an upper 40x40cm medium weight polipropilene mesh set to both Cooper ligaments. Results After two and a half months, a PET-TC showed the BioA mesh perfectly adapted to the abdominal wall and rebuilt a new inguinal ligament. Also intense FDG capitation of the mesh due to the high cellular metabolism. Two years later the patient has a continent abdominal wall, the follow up TC shows the disappearance of the absorbable mesh and the perfect abdominal wall rebuilt. Conclusions The BioA mesh acts like a tissue scaffold for new conjunctive tissue as we see the intense FDG captation. The Madrid APPROACH allows giving response to very complex abdominal wall problems.

P020 ESTABLISHING PEER-CONSENSUS ABOUT THE USE OF LONG-TERM BIOSYNTHETIC ABSORBABLE MESH FOR VENTRAL HERNIA (GRADE 2-3) AS THE STANDARD OF CARE

Aim “This consensus project was initiated to provide insight into those situations where a long-term biosynthetic absorbable mesh (LTBA) might be considered the standard of care in repair of ventral hernia grades 2 and 3 (original Ventral Hernia Working Group Classification, 2010).” Material and Methods “A steering group of surgical experts developed 35 initial statements formed from six domains. These statements were used to develop an online survey which was sent to surgeons involved in hernia repair surgery within Europe. Agreement (consensus) with the statements was defined as high if ≥ 70% and very high if ≥ 90% of respondents agreed with a statement. After the initial survey round, some statements were revised and these were then reissued, 34 statements were included in the final analysis” Results “A total of 255 responses were received over the two rounds of survey. Respondents (n = 255) were all surgeons involved in hernia repair in Europe. Fourteen statements (41%) achieved very high consensus (≥ 90%), 24 statements achieved consensus (≥70% to < 90%) while one statement (3%) fell short of consensus with an agreement score of 69%.” Conclusions “Expert consensus opinion about the use of LTBA for hernia (Grades 2-3) as the standard of care was achieved. Based on the consensus scores, the steering group derived eleven key recommendations which, if implemented, should result in a clearer understanding of how and when a LTBA might be used in hernia repair, aiming for improvement in surgical and patient related outcomes”

632 SUTURED VERSUS MESH-AUGMENTED HIATUS HERNIA REPAIR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Repair of large hiatus hernias is increasingly being performed. However, there is no consensus for the optimal technique for hiatal closure between sutured versus mesh-augmented (absorbable or non-absorbable) repair. This meta-analysis systematically reviewed published randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing sutured versus mesh-augmented hiatus hernia (HH) repair. Our primary endpoint was HH recurrence at short- and long-term follow-up. Secondary endpoints were: surgical complications, operative times, dysphagia and quality of life. Methods A systematic review of Medline, Scopus (which encompassed Embase), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies comparing mesh-augmented versus sutured HH repair. Data were extracted and compared by meta-analysis, using odds ratio and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Results Seven RCTs were found which compared mesh-augmented (non-absorbable mesh: n = 296; absorbable mesh: n = 92) with sutured repair (n = 347). There were no significant differences for short-term hernia recurrence (defined as 6–12 months, 10.1% mesh versus 15.5% sutured, P = 0.22), long-term hernia recurrence (defined as 3–5 years, 30.7% mesh vs 31.3% sutured, P = 0.69), functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. The only statistically significant difference was that the mesh repair required a longer operation time (P = 0.05, OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.03–24.69). Conclusion Mesh repair for hiatus hernia does not offer any advantage over sutured hiatal closure. As both techniques deliver good and comparable clinical outcomes, a suture only technique is still an appropriate approach.