Background: Umbilical and epigastric hernia repairs are frequently performed surgical procedures with an expected low complication rate. Nevertheless, the optimal method of repair with best short- and long-term outcomes remains debatable. The aim was to develop guidelines for the treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias. Methods: The guideline group consisted of surgeons from Europe and North America including members from the European Hernia Society and the Americas Hernia Society. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) critical appraisal checklists, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument were used. A systematic literature search was done on 1 May 2018, and updated on 1 February 2019. Results: Literature reporting specifically on umbilical and epigastric hernias was limited in quantity and quality, resulting in a majority of the recommendations being graded as weak, based on low-quality evidence. The main recommendation was to use mesh for repair of umbilical and epigastric hernias to reduce the recurrence rate. Most umbilical and epigastric hernias may be repaired by an open approach with a preperitoneal flat mesh. A laparoscopic approach may be considered if the hernia defect is large, or if the patient has an increased risk of wound morbidity. Conclusion: This is the first European and American guideline on the treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias. It is recommended that symptomatic umbilical and epigastric hernias are repaired by an open approach with a preperitoneal flat mesh.

Since the introduction of anaesthesia by Morton in 1846, and as survivable abdominal surgery became more common, so did the incidence of incisional hernias. Since then, more than 4000 peer-reviewed articles have been published on the topic, many of which have tried to reduce the incidence or introduce techniques to improve outcomes from surgical repair. Despite this, the incidence of incisional hernias and the recurrence rates after repair remain high. A wide range of incisional hernia rates are reported^1–5. A meta-analysis including over 14 000 patients reported a weighted incidence of 12.8 per cent 2 years after a midline incision, and that one-third of patients with an incisional hernia undergo surgical repair⁶. Recurrence rates after repair of incisional hernia range between 23 and 50 per cent, with increasing rates of complications and re-recurrence after each subsequent failed repair⁷. Arguably, no other benign disease has seen so little improvement in terms of surgical outcome.

Background: Rare locations of hernias, as well as primary ventral hernias under certain circumstances (cirrhosis, dialysis, rectus diastasis, subsequent pregnancy), might be technically challenging. The aim was to identify situations where the treatment strategy might deviate from routine management. Methods: The guideline group consisted of surgeons from the European and Americas Hernia Societies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used in formulating the recommendations. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) critical appraisal checklists were used to evaluate the quality of full-text papers. A systematic literature search was performed on 1 May 2018 and updated 1 February 2019. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was followed. Results: Literature was limited in quantity and quality. A majority of the recommendations were graded as weak, based on low quality of evidence. In patients with cirrhosis or on dialysis, a preperitoneal mesh repair is suggested. Subsequent pregnancy is a risk factor for recurrence. Repair should be postponed until after the last pregnancy. For patients with a concomitant rectus diastasis or those with a Spigelian or lumbar hernia, no recommendation could be made for treatment strategy owing to lack of evidence. Conclusion: This is the first European and American guideline on the treatment of umbilical and epigastric hernias in patients with special conditions, including Spigelian and lumbar hernias. All recommendations were weak owing to a lack of evidence. Further studies are needed on patients with rectus diastasis, Spigelian and lumbar hernias.

Objective: Inguinoscrotal hernia (ISH) of the bladder is a rare condition involved in less than 4% of inguinal hernias. In most cases, it occurs to men older than 50 years who are overweight. Little is known about the subject and mainly based on case reports. When undiagnosed, it may be associated with bladder injuries during hernia repair. There is also no consensus on the ideal repair technique to use. The aim of the study is to evaluate the particularity of the management of the inguinal herniation of the bladder in term of diagnosis, choice and results of treatments. Methods: A Prisma systematic review of the literature was performed over the last 10 years using a database. We selected 51 articles including 64 patients with ISH of the bladder. Results: ISH of the bladder mainly occurred in overweight men aged over 50 years (Body Mass Index >30). Symptoms were reported for 76% of the patients (n=49), including inguinal swelling 60% of cases (n=38), lower urinary tract symptoms (48%), pain (40%) and a reduction of an inguinal mass after voiding (12.7%). Diagnosis was incidental on imaging for 7 patients, during inguinal repair surgery for 8, or on imaging performed following symptoms for the remaining 49 patients. Surgical repair was reported for 46 patients (71%) including various procedures as open surgery (80%) and laparoscopic approaches (20%). Excellent short term results were reported. Conclusion: ISH of the bladder seams more likely to occur with patients suffering from lower urinary tract obstruction and best diagnosed with a computerized tomography scan. Various surgical techniques are reported. Cite this article as: Branchu B, Renard Y, Larre S, Leon P. Diagnosis and treatment of inguinal hernia of the bladder: a systematic review of the past 10 years. Turk J Urol 2018; 44(5): 384-8.

A ‘complex’ hernia is often referred to in the published literature, yet has not been clearly defined to date. ‘Large’ and ‘giant’ may also be used to describe a complex incisional hernia indirectly^1–3. Meanwhile, a ‘complex hernia’ in reference to the technical surgical challenge of abdominal wall repair is different from a ‘complex patient’, the latter relating more to a patient’s mental or physical health. Several risk scores have been developed and described in the literature^2,4–6. Although hernia dimensions and defect characteristics alongside patient co-morbidities have demonstrated some correlation with poor surgical outcomes^1,3, postoperative complications alone should not define complexity^6,7. Slater et al.⁸ subsequently published criteria to define a complex abdominal wall hernia, comprising four categories: size and location, contamination/soft tissue condition, patient history/risk factors, and clinical scenario; three severity classes were defined, namely minor, moderate, and major. Although often referenced in publications, this definition has not been found to be an efficient working definition of a complex incisional hernia^4,9. Furthermore, with increasing preoperative adjuncts and operative strategies available to manage incisional hernia^6,10, and increased surgical specialization in the field^2,10, a revised consensus definition is required.