Literature DB >> 19655600

Early results of midline hernia repair using a minimally invasive component separation technique.

Sharon L Bachman1, Archana Ramaswamy, Bruce J Ramshaw.   

Abstract

A minimally invasive component separation may lead to a dynamic abdominal wall after hernia repair, with reduced complications. We present early results of our patients undergoing this technique. Five patients were selected for open midline repairs; three with chronic infections, one with a prior midline skin graft, and one who desired a primary, tension-free repair. These three males and two females had a mean age of 50.8 +/- 21.1 years and body mass index of 30.9 +/- 6.2. The mean number of previous abdominal operations was 7 +/- 3.4 and previous attempted hernia repairs were 4 +/- 2.7. All patients had a midline laparotomy with lysis of adhesions. An endoscopic component separation was then performed bilaterally. Drains were left in the dissection bed. All patients had the midline closed; four received biologic mesh underlays. Mean operative time was 227 minutes +/- 49. Mean length of stay (LOS) was 9.2 days +/- 3.6. Early median follow-up was 6 months (range 0.25-9). Two patients required postop transfusions, and two patients had mild complications of the midline wound (hematoma, infection). To date, one recurrence was diagnosed by CT scan. Early evaluation of adopting the minimally invasive (MIS) component separation demonstrates minimal complications and good initial outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19655600

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Surg        ISSN: 0003-1348            Impact factor:   0.688


  8 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic versus open component separation: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Noah J Switzer; Mark A Dykstra; Richdeep S Gill; Stephanie Lim; Erica Lester; Christopher de Gara; Xinzhe Shi; Daniel W Birch; Shahzeer Karmali
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Minimally invasive component separation technique for large ventral hernia: which is the best choice? A systematic literature review.

Authors:  Andrea Balla; Isaias Alarcón; Salvador Morales-Conde
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Positive outcomes with negative pressure therapy over primarily closed large abdominal wall reconstruction reduces surgical site infection rates.

Authors:  A Gassman; A Mehta; E Bucholdz; A Abthani; O Guerra; M M Maclin; T Esposito; C Thomas
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 4.739

4.  Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: does IPOM plus allow to increase the indications in larger defects?

Authors:  M Toffolo Pasquini; P Medina; L A Mata; R Cerutti; E A Porto; D E Pirchi
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2021-10-02       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 5.  Biologic versus nonbiologic mesh in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ali Darehzereshki; Melanie Goldfarb; Joerg Zehetner; Ashkan Moazzez; John C Lipham; Rodney J Mason; Namir Katkhouda
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  The peritoneal flap hernioplasty for repair of large ventral and incisional hernias.

Authors:  A Malik; A D H Macdonald; A C de Beaux; B R Tulloh
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 4.739

7.  Inguinal single-port approach of endoscopic component separation for abdominal wall defects: A case series.

Authors:  Mamoru Miyasaka; Yo Kawarada; Yoshiyuki Yamamura; Shuji Kitashiro; Shunichi Okushiba; Satoshi Hirano
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2022-09-09

Review 8.  Comparison of Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa versus Polypropylene in Open Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Xin Nie; Dongdong Xiao; Wenyue Wang; Zhicheng Song; Zhi Yang; Yuanwen Chen; Yan Gu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.