Concomitant midline ventral and inguinal hernia repair: can we create an algorithmic approach?

• Published in: Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery Vol. 28; no. 4; pp. 1215 - 1223
• Main Authors: Pacheco, T. B. S., Cordero, K., Arias-Espinosa, L., Hurwitz, J. C., Malcher, F., Halpern, D.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Paris Springer Paris 01.08.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Algorithms; Comorbidity; Decision making; Hernia; Hernias; Laparoscopy; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Original Article; Patients; Robotic surgery; Robotics; Combined ventral and inguinal hernia repair; Robotic hernia repair; Hernia algorithm
• ISSN: 1248-9204; 1265-4906; 1248-9204
• DOI: 10.1007/s10029-024-03008-w

Purpose International guidelines exist for surgical treatment of either ventral or inguinal hernias repair (VHR; IHR). However, approach for managing both of them remains unestablished and is further complicated by newly developed surgical techniques and modalities (namely, robotic). This highlights the need for a tailored, algorithmic strategy to streamline surgical management. Methods An algorithm was developed by the directors of the NYU Langone Abdominal Core Health program of which four treatment groups were described: Group 1: open VHR and either laparoscopic or robotic IHR; Group 2: robotic transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) approach for both VHR and IHR; Group 3: robotic retro-muscular VHR and IHR; and Group 4: open repair for both. Demographics, comorbidities, operative characteristics, and surgical outcomes from November 2021 to July 2023 were retrospectively compared. Results Ninety-two patients were included with a median age of 64 years, 90% ( n  = 83) were white, 85% ( n  = 78) were male, median BMI was 27 kg/m 2 , and 73% ( n  = 67) were ASA class II. Distribution of groups was: 48% ( n  = 44) in 1A, 8% ( n  = 7) in 1B, 8% ( n  = 7) in 2A, 3% ( n  = 3) in 2B, 23% ( n  = 21) in 3A, 8% ( n  = 7) in 3B, and 3% ( n  = 3) in 4. Ventral hernia size, OR time, and postoperative length of stay varied across groups. Postoperative outcomes at 30 days including emergency consults, readmissions, and complications, showed no differences across groups. Conclusion Access without guidance to new minimally invasive surgical approaches can be a challenge for the general surgeon. We propose an algorithm for decision-making based on our experience of incorporating robotic surgery, when available, for repair of concomitant VHR and IHR with consistent favorable outcomes within a small sample of patients.