search
Back to results

Peritoneal Bridging in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair (BriClo)

Primary Purpose

Hernia, Ventral, Laparoscopy, Seroma

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Sweden
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Conventional defect closure
Peritoneal bridging
Sponsored by
Karolinska Institutet
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Hernia, Ventral

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age ≥ 18 years
  • Patients planned for laparoscopic repair of midline incisional hernia
  • Defects with diameter 3-10 cm
  • BMI<40

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Defect >10 cm
  • Ventral hernias with other localization than the midline
  • Emergency surgery and incarcerated hernias
  • Preoperative suspicion of extensive adhesions
  • Pregnancy or intended pregnancy
  • Serious comorbidity

Sites / Locations

  • Department of Surgery, Karloskoga Hospital

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

Experimental

Arm Label

Conventional defect closure

Peritoneal bridging

Arm Description

The defect is sutured with continuous PDS 2-0.

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

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Seroma formation
Volume of postoperative seroma measured with computer tomography

Secondary Outcome Measures

Postoperative complications
Complications related to the procedure
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 required to close the defect
Time (minutes) from beginning the closure to placing the mesh
Hernia recurrence
Recurrence of the hernia

Full Information

First Posted
November 12, 2017
Last Updated
January 26, 2020
Sponsor
Karolinska Institutet
Collaborators
Karlskoga Hospital
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT03344575
Brief Title
Peritoneal Bridging in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair
Acronym
BriClo
Official Title
Randomised Controlled Trial of Peritoneal Bridging Versus Defect Closure in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
January 2020
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
July 1, 2017 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
June 30, 2019 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
December 31, 2019 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Karolinska Institutet
Collaborators
Karlskoga Hospital

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
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.
Detailed Description
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.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Hernia, Ventral, Laparoscopy, Seroma

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Model Description
Double-blind randomized controlled trial.
Masking
ParticipantOutcomes Assessor
Masking Description
The patient undergoing surgery and the physician performing the follow-up are masked to the allocation.
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
50 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Conventional defect closure
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
The defect is sutured with continuous PDS 2-0.
Arm Title
Peritoneal bridging
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
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
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Conventional defect closure
Intervention Description
Laparoscopic suturing of the defect prior to placing an intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
Peritoneal bridging
Intervention Description
Laparoscopic closure of the defect by using a peritoneal flap prior to placing an intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Seroma formation
Description
Volume of postoperative seroma measured with computer tomography
Time Frame
One year
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Postoperative complications
Description
Complications related to the procedure
Time Frame
30 days
Title
Postoperative pain
Description
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
Title
Time required to close the defect
Description
Time (minutes) from beginning the closure to placing the mesh
Time Frame
3 hours
Title
Hernia recurrence
Description
Recurrence of the hernia
Time Frame
One year

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Age ≥ 18 years Patients planned for laparoscopic repair of midline incisional hernia Defects with diameter 3-10 cm BMI<40 Exclusion Criteria: Defect >10 cm Ventral hernias with other localization than the midline Emergency surgery and incarcerated hernias Preoperative suspicion of extensive adhesions Pregnancy or intended pregnancy Serious comorbidity
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Department of Surgery, Karloskoga Hospital
City
Karlskoga
ZIP/Postal Code
69144
Country
Sweden

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
No
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
32463163
Citation
Ali F, Wallin G, Fathalla B, Sandblom G. Peritoneal bridging versus fascial closure in laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay ventral hernia mesh repair: a randomized clinical trial. BJS Open. 2020 Aug;4(4):587-592. doi: 10.1002/bjs5.50305. Epub 2020 May 28.
Results Reference
derived

Learn more about this trial

Peritoneal Bridging in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs