Literature DB >> 17646896

Laparoscopic component separation in the single-stage treatment of infected abdominal wall prosthetic removal.

M J Rosen1, J Jin, M F McGee, C Williams, J Marks, J L Ponsky.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ideal surgical treatment for complicated ventral hernias remains elusive. Traditional component separation provides local advancement of native tissue for tension-free closure without prosthetic materials. This technique requires an extensive subcutaneous dissection, with the division of perforating vessels predisposing to skin flap necrosis and complicated wound infections. The laparoscopic separation of components provides a minimally invasive alternative to open techniques, while eliminating the potential space and subsequent complications of large skin flaps. We report our initial experience with a minimally invasive component separation with early postoperative outcomes.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent a minimally invasive component separation for abdominal wall reconstruction during the resection of an infected prosthetic. Pertinent details included baseline demographics, reason for contamination, operative technique and details, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and recurrence rates.
RESULTS: Between August 2006 and January 2007, seven patients were identified who underwent a laparoscopic component separation. There were four males and three females, with a mean age of 54 years (range 34-84), mean American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score of 3.2 (range 3-4), and mean body mass index (BMI) of 37 kg/m2 (range 30-45). The reason for contamination included exposed non-healing mesh (6) and contaminated fluid collection around the mesh (1). Residual defect size following the removal of all prosthetics was 338 cm2 (range 187-450). The mean operative time was 185 min (range 155-220). Laparoscopic component separation enabled tension-free primary fascial reapproximation in all patients. Three postoperative complications occurred, including superficial surgical site infection (1), respiratory failure (1), and hematoma (1). There was no mortality in this series. During an average follow-up period of 4.5 months, no recurrences were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a minimally invasive component separation is feasible and can result in minimal postoperative wound morbidity in these complex patients. Long-term follow-up is necessary to evaluate the outcomes with respect to recurrence rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17646896     DOI: 10.1007/s10029-007-0255-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hernia        ISSN: 1248-9204            Impact factor:   4.739


  20 in total

1.  Endoscopically assisted "components separation technique" for the repair of complicated ventral hernias.

Authors:  Sylvester M Maas; ReilinghTammo S de Vries; Harry van Goor; Dick de Jong; Robert P Bleichrodt
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  "Components separation" method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study.

Authors:  O M Ramirez; E Ruas; A L Dellon
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Open preperitoneal retrofascial mesh repair for multiply recurrent ventral incisional hernias.

Authors:  Yuri W Novitsky; Justin R Porter; Zach C Rucho; Stanley B Getz; Broc L Pratt; Kent W Kercher; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2006-07-13       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  Closure of chronic abdominal wall defects: a long-term evaluation of the components separation method.

Authors:  J A Girotto; M J Ko; R Redett; T Muehlberger; M Talamini; B Chang
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 1.539

5.  Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia mesh repair: a prospective study.

Authors:  D Lomanto; S G Iyer; A Shabbir; W-K Cheah
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-05-15       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  The separation of anatomic components technique for the reconstruction of massive midline abdominal wall defects: anatomy, surgical technique, applications, and limitations revisited.

Authors:  K C Shestak; H J Edington; R R Johnson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Surgical treatment of large contaminated abdominal wall defects.

Authors:  Hendrikus J A A van Geffen; Roger K J Simmermacher; Theo J M V van Vroonhoven; Christiaan van der Werken
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 6.113

8.  Recalcitrant abdominal wall hernias: long-term superiority of autologous tissue repair.

Authors:  John A Girotto; Michael Chiaramonte; Nathan G Menon; Navin Singh; Ron Silverman; Anthony P Tufaro; Maurice Nahabedian; Nelson H Goldberg; Paul N Manson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia.

Authors:  Jacobus W A Burger; Roland W Luijendijk; Wim C J Hop; Jens A Halm; Emiel G G Verdaasdonk; Johannes Jeekel
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Incisional herniorrhaphy with intraperitoneal composite mesh: a report of 95 cases.

Authors:  William S Cobb; James B Harris; Jonathan S Lokey; Eric S McGill; Karin L Klove
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 0.688

View more
  36 in total

1.  Open versus endoscopic component separation: a cost comparison.

Authors:  Karem C Harth; Johnie Rose; Conor P Delaney; Jeffrey A Blatnik; Ihab Halaweish; Michael J Rosen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  [Abdominal wall components separation method for closure of complicated abdominal hernias].

Authors:  D Pantelis; A Jafari; T O Vilz; N Schäfer; J C Kalff; M Kaminski
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  The endoscopic component separation technique for hernia repair results in reduced morbidity compared to the open component separation technique.

Authors:  M Giurgius; L Bendure; D L Davenport; J S Roth
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  Not all biologics are equal!

Authors:  B C Shah; M M Tiwari; M R Goede; M J Eichler; R R Hollins; C L McBride; J S Thompson; D Oleynikov
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2010-12-28       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Multilayer myofascial-mesh repair for giant midline incisional hernias: a novel advantageous combination of old and new techniques.

Authors:  Joaquín Picazo-Yeste; Antonio Morandeira-Rivas; Carlos Moreno-Sanz
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Enhanced recovery after giant ventral hernia repair.

Authors:  K K Jensen; T L Brondum; H Harling; H Kehlet; L N Jorgensen
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 4.739

7.  Repair of abdominal wall hernias with restoration of abdominal wall function.

Authors:  Michael J Rosen; Javairiah Fatima; Michael G Sarr
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  Abdominal wall reconstruction in patients with digestive tract fistulas.

Authors:  Eric K Johnson; Pamela L Tushoski
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2010-09

Review 9.  Retromuscular Sublay Technique for Ventral Hernia Repair.

Authors:  Irfan A Rhemtulla; John P Fischer
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 2.314

10.  Laparoscopic repair of complex ventral hernia facilitated by pre-operative chemical component relaxation using Botulinum Toxin A.

Authors:  K E Elstner; A S W Jacombs; J W Read; O Rodriguez; M Edye; P H Cosman; A N Dardano; A Zea; T Boesel; D J Mikami; C Craft; N Ibrahim
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 4.739

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.