P121 ONLAY MESH FOR TREATMENT OF SMALL UMBILICAL HERNIAS IN ADULTS - A SINGE CENTER INVESTIGATION

Aim Previous studies on the repair of small umbilical hernias have suggested a lower recurrence rate with mesh compared to suture repair. A remaining important question is in what anatomical position the mesh should be placed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcome of using a standardized 4x4 cm onlay-mesh for umbilical hernias ≤2cm. Material and Methods A retrospective study was conducted at a single institution in Sweden on all umbilical hernia repairs during 2015-2019. The follow up time was at least four months. Patients were identified using the hospital medical record database. Repairs performed with suture, sublay, ventral patch or laparoscopic mesh positioning were excluded. Patient’s demographics, comorbidities, intra – and postoperative details were considered. Primary outcome was surgical site complications within 30 days. Secondary outcome was recurrence. Results 80 patients were repaired with a small onlay-mesh for an umbilical hernia ≤ 2 cm and were included for statistical analysis. Median (range) follow-up time was 29.0 (4.3-50.1) months. Median age was 46 (26-76) years old. Median body mass index was 28 (19-38) kg/m2. Men to female ratio was 2.1. 4 patients were identified with a surgical site postoperative complication; 3 with seroma and 1 with superficial wound infection. 3 of these were given antibiotics. 2 patients were treated with wound opening bedside. There were no registered cases of a recurrence. Conclusions Repairing small umbilical hernias with a small onlay-mesh was safe with a low surgical site complication rate. Randomized trials are needed to assess weather mesh reduce recurrences in umbilical hernia repairs ≤2cm.

Onlay mesh repair for treatment of small umbilical hernias ≤ 2 cm in adults: a single-centre investigation

Purpose Previous studies on the repair of small umbilical hernias have suggested a lower recurrence rate with mesh compared to suture repair. An important question is in what anatomical position the mesh should be placed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcome of using a standardized 4 × 4 cm onlay-mesh for umbilical hernias ≤ 2 cm. Methods A retrospective study was conducted at a single centre in Sweden on all umbilical hernia repairs during 2015–2019. The follow-up time was at least four months. Patients were identified using the hospital medical database. Repairs performed with suture or a sublay, ventral patch and laparoscopic mesh positioning were excluded. The patient’s demographics, comorbidities, intra—and post-operative details were considered. The primary outcome was surgical site complications within 30 days. The secondary outcome was a recurrence. Results 80 patients were repaired with a small onlay-mesh for an umbilical hernia ≤ 2 cm. The median (range) follow-up time was 29.0 (4.3–50.1) months. The median age was 46 (26–76) years old. The median body mass index was 28 (19–38) kg/m2. The male to female ratio was 2:1. 4 patients were identified with a surgical site post-operative complication; three with seromas and one with a superficial wound infection. 3 of these were given antibiotics. 2 patients were treated with wound openings bedside. There were no registered cases of recurrence. Conclusions Repairing small umbilical hernias with a small onlay-mesh was safe with a low surgical site complication rate. Randomized trials are needed to assess whether mesh can reduce recurrences in umbilical hernia repairs ≤ 2 cm.

Osteosynthesis of non-displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly population using the femoral neck system (FNS): short-term clinical and radiological outcomes

Background Femoral neck fractures (FNF) are frequent in the elderly population, and surgical management is indicated in the vast majority of cases. Osteosynthesis is an alternative to arthroplasty for non-displaced FNF. Triple screw construct (TS) and the dynamic hip screw system (DHS) are considered gold standards for osteosynthesis. The newly available femoral neck system (FNS) currently lacks evidence as to whether it is a valid alternative to TS and DHS. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term clinical and radiological outcomes after non-displaced (Garden I and II) FNF osteosynthesis using TS, DHS, and FNS. Methods All the patients of the author’s institution aged ≥ 75 years with a non-displaced (Garden I and II) FNF eligible for osteosynthesis between November 2015 and December 2019 were included in this single-center retrospective non-randomized study. Patients were treated with either TS, DHS, or FNS depending on the surgeon’s preference. Clinical data (age, gender, ASA score, duration of surgery, need for blood transfusion and number of packed red blood cells transfused, surgical site complications, length of stay, discharge location, postoperative medical complications and readmission within 30 days, and mortality within 3 months) were extracted from the patients’ charts. The radiological analysis assessed the fracture classification, fracture impaction, and proximal femur shortening at 3 and 6 months using the institutional imaging software. Results Baseline characteristics in the TS (n = 32), DHS (n = 16), and FNS (n = 15) groups were similar with respect to age (mean 85 years), gender (female to male ratio 4:1), and ASA score. There were no significant differences across the groups for the need for blood transfusion, surgical site complications, length of stay, postoperative medical complications and readmission within 30 days, discharge location, and mortality within 3 months. The duration of surgery was significantly lower in the FNS group (43.3 vs 68.8 min; p < 0.001). The radiological assessment found similar impaction (5.2 mm ± 4.8) and shortening (8.6 mm ± 8.2) in all groups that did not seem to progress after 3 months. Conclusion The FNS appears to be a valid alternative implant for FNF osteosynthesis and is associated with a shorter operative time than TS and DHS. Short-term clinical and radiological outcomes of FNS are similar to TS and DHS implants. Further long-term multicenter randomized studies are however necessary to confirm these first results.

When Is It Safe to Operate After Therapeutic Carpal Tunnel Injections?

Background Recent studies suggest increased complications when surgery closely follows corticosteroid injection. The purpose of this study was to understand the occurrence of surgical site infection (SSI), wound complications, and reoperation rates after carpal tunnel release (CTR) when corticosteroid injections were given within 180 days preoperatively. Methods Data were collected from the Truven MarketScan database from 2009 to 2018. Cohorts were created based on preoperative timing of injection (<30, 30-60, 61-90, 91-180 days) and number of injections (0, 1, 2, 3+). Logistic regression was performed to assess the contribution of preoperative injections on 90-day surgical site complications and 1-year reoperation while controlling for demographics and comorbidities. Results Overall, 223 899 patients underwent CTR. Of these, 17 391 (7.76%) had a preoperative injection in the 180 days preceding surgery. Univariate analysis demonstrated a relationship between timing of injections and noninfectious wound complications ( P = .006) and rate of 1-year reoperation ( P = .045). Univariate analysis demonstrated a relationship between number of injections and 1-year reoperation ( P < .001). On multivariate analysis, those receiving injections within 30 days preoperatively had increased rates of SSI ( P = .034) and noninfectious wound complications ( P = .006) compared with those with no injection or at other time points. Patients with 2 ( P = .002) or 3 or more injections ( P < .001) in the 180-day preoperative period had increased odds of 1-year reoperation. Conclusion Our study suggests increased risk of SSI, wound complications, and 1-year reoperation when corticosteroid injections are administered in the 30-day preoperative period. In addition, multiple steroid injections may increase the risk of 1-year reoperation.