An interventional study of Conventional defect closure and Peritoneal bridging in Hernia, Ventral, Laparoscopy and Seroma, sponsored by Karolinska Institutet. Completed at 1 site in Sweden. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-01-28.
Sponsored by Karolinska Institutet · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (VHR) is usually performed by reducing the contents in the hernia sac from the abdominal cavity and then covering the defect from the inside with a mesh, i.e. Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM). This means that the hernia sac is left in situ anterior to the mesh. This may, however, predispose for the development of fluid in the hernia sac, i.e. seroma. The risk of seroma development may be reduced if a the defect is closed before the mesh is applied. Closing the defect may, however, cause tension and pain from the abdominal wall. Instead of closing the defect, the part of the peritoneum constituting the hernia sac may be used for closing the defect. In this case, the peritoneum is dissected from the edges of the hernia sac and then used as a flap that is fixated to the edges of the hernia sac on the opposite side.
In order to evaluate whether peritoneal bridging reduces the seroma development following ventral hernia repair, we are undertaking a double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing conventional closure of the hernia defect with peritoneal bridging. The goal is to randomize 50 patients undergoing laparoscopic ventral hernia to conventional closure or closure of the defect with peritoneal bridging.
Clinical follow-up is performed one month and one year after surgery. At both occasions, the patient is requested to fill in the Ventral Hernia Pain Questionnaire (VHPQ) and an investigation is done in order to assess the presence of seromas, recurrences or other local complications. One year after surgery, computer tomography is performed. The main purpose of the computer tomography is to quantify the presence of seromas.
The study is intended as phase 2 study with the aim of evaluating peritoneal bridging as an alternative to conventional defect closure. If the study shows that bridging does not lead to substantial seroma development, future studies with greater statistical power and other outcome measures will be undertaken.
Background
Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (VHR) has become a well-established technique during the last decade. The repair is usually performed by reducing the contents in the hernia sac from the abdominal cavity and then covering the defect from the inside with a mesh, i.e. Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh (IPOM). This means that the hernia sac is left in situ anterior to the mesh. This may, however, predispose for the development of fluid in the hernia sac, i.e. seroma. Even if the mesh prevents the intestines from protruding into the hernia sac, the patient may still be troubled by discomfort from the seroma that replaces the hernia..
The risk of seroma development may be reduced if a the defect is closed before the mesh is applied (IPOM-Plus). Closing the defect may, however, cause tension and pain from the abdominal wall. Instead of closing the defect, the part of the peritoneum constituting the hernia sac may be used for closing the defect. In this case, the peritoneum is dissected from the edges of the hernia sac and then used as a flap that is fixated to the edges of the hernia sac on the opposite side. This reduces the size of the pseudosac and the peritoneal surface, which prevents transudation to the pseudosac.
In order to evaluate whether peritoneal bridging reduces the seroma development following ventral hernia repair, we are undertaking a randomized controlled trial. Our goal is to include 50 patients in the study.
Method
After obtaining written and oral consent from the patient, the randomisation is performed through a sealed envelope system. The patient is blinded to the allocation. Prior to the procedure, the patient is also requested to fill in the Ventral Hernia Pain Questionnaire (VHPQ).
The procedure is started according to the usual routines. Adhesions covering the defect are dissected in order to visualize the defect. If the patients has been randomized to defect closure, it is sutured with continuous PDS 2-0. . In case the patient is allocated to peritoneal bridging, the peritoneum is dissected beginning 2-3 cm from the edge of the defect. The sac is disected all the way to the opposite edge of the defect. The peritoneal flap is pulled to the opposite side and fixated with Optifix. One of the aims of the bridging is to to close the defect and increase the surface of contact between the mesh and the peritoneum.
The mesh is attached in the same, irrespective of randomization. Optifix with double-crown technique is used in both groups. Operation time and intraoperative complications are registered when the procedure is completed. From the day of the procedure until two days postoperatively, pain from the area of surgery is registered daily on a VAS-scale.
The patient is invited to clinical follow-up one month and one year after surgery. At both occasions the patient is requested to fill in VHPQ. One year after surgery, a computer tomography while straining in order to detect protrusion of the abdominal contents in the defect. Any protrusion seen at the computer tomography is graded according to a previously validated classification. The presence of seromas detected at the computer tomography is described according to Morales-Conde,
The computer tomography images are assessed by two radiologists in order to reach consensus. The presence of seroma anterior to the defect is evaluated in terms of size (maximal diameter), localization, shape (round, oval, triangular), mean density (Hounsfield unit, HU) and the volume through three-dimensional reconstructions.
230 studies on the registry are indexed under Hernia, Ventral; 45 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 50 is below the median of 90 across 153 interventional studies indexed under Hernia, Ventral.
Browse Hernia, Ventral studies →Karolinska Institutet is the lead sponsor of 1,148 studies on the registry; 276 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.
What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.
BMI (body mass index)
Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.
What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
The defect is sutured with continuous PDS 2-0.
Procedure: Conventional defect closure
The peritoneum is dissected beginning 2-3 cm from the edge of the defect. The sac is dissected all the way to the opposite edge of the defect. The peritoneal flap is pulled to the opposite side and fixated with Optifix
Procedure: Peritoneal bridging
Laparoscopic suturing of the defect prior to placing an intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh
Laparoscopic closure of the defect by using a peritoneal flap prior to placing an intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh
Seroma formation
Volume of postoperative seroma measured with computer tomography
Time frame: One year
Postoperative complications
Complications related to the procedure
Time frame: 30 days
Postoperative pain
Pain assessed with the Ventral Hernia Pain Questionnaire for rating abdominal wall pain. Range 0-7 from no pain to most intensive pain. No subscales or added scores.
Time frame: One year
Time required to close the defect
Time (minutes) from beginning the closure to placing the mesh
Time frame: 3 hours
Hernia recurrence
Recurrence of the hernia
Time frame: One year
Plan to share: No
Ran from Jul 2017 to primary completion in Jun 2019, 23 months.
Of 75 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Hernia, Ventral, half reached primary completion within 33 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 19 and three quarters within 48. This study's 23 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 88 studies reached it within 37 months; a quarter within 19 and three quarters within 56.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.