Literature DB >> 22521439

Minimally invasive component separation results in fewer wound-healing complications than open component separation for large ventral hernia repairs.

Shadi Ghali1, Kristin C Turza, Donald P Baumann, Charles E Butler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive component separation (CS) with inlay bioprosthetic mesh (MICSIB) is a recently developed technique for abdominal wall reconstruction that preserves the rectus abdominis perforators and minimizes subcutaneous dead space using limited-access tunneled incisions. We hypothesized that MICSIB would result in better surgical outcomes than conventional open CS. STUDY
DESIGN: All consecutive patients who underwent CS (open or minimally invasive) with inlay bioprosthetic mesh for ventral hernia repair from 2005 to 2010 were included in a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Surgical outcomes, including wound-healing complications, hernia recurrences, and abdominal bulge/laxity rates, were compared between patient groups based on the type of CS repair, either MICSIB or open.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients who underwent MICSIB and 50 who underwent open CS were included. Mean follow-ups were 15.2 ± 7.7 months and 20.7 ± 14.3 months, respectively. Mean fascial defect size was significantly larger in the MICSIB group (405.4 ± 193.6 cm(2) vs 273.8 ± 186.8 cm(2); p = 0.002). The incidences of skin dehiscence (11% vs 28%; p = 0.011), all wound-healing complications (14% vs 32%; p = 0.026), abdominal wall laxity/bulge (4% vs 14%; p = 0.056), and hernia recurrence (4% vs 8%; p = 0.3) were lower in the MICSIB group than in the open CS group.
CONCLUSIONS: MICSIB resulted in fewer wound-healing complications than did open CS used for complex abdominal wall reconstructions. These findings are likely attributable to the preservation of paramedian skin vascularity and reduction in subcutaneous dead space with MICSIB. MICSIB should be considered for complex abdominal wall reconstructions, particularly in patients at increased risk of wound-healing complications. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22521439      PMCID: PMC3889113          DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.02.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  21 in total

1.  Violation of the rectus complex is not a contraindication to component separation for abdominal wall reconstruction.

Authors:  Patrick B Garvey; Chad M Bailey; Donald P Baumann; Jun Liu; Charles E Butler
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2011-12-09       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias.

Authors:  G E Leber; J L Garb; A I Alexander; W P Reed
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1998-04

3.  Minimally invasive component separation with inlay bioprosthetic mesh (MICSIB) for complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

Authors:  Charles E Butler; Kristin Turza Campbell
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Prospective measurements of intra-abdominal volume and pulmonary function after repair of massive ventral hernias with the components separation technique.

Authors:  Sonya P Agnew; William Small; Edward Wang; Lewis J Smith; Ivan Hadad; Gregory A Dumanian
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair.

Authors:  Karl Breuing; Charles E Butler; Stephen Ferzoco; Michael Franz; Charles S Hultman; Joshua F Kilbridge; Michael Rosen; Ronald P Silverman; Daniel Vargo
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 3.982

6.  Comparison of cross-linked and non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrices for ventral hernia repair.

Authors:  Charles E Butler; Nadja K Burns; Kristin Turza Campbell; Anshu B Mathur; Mona V Jaffari; Carmen N Rios
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 6.113

7.  Twelve-year experience with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene in the repair of abdominal wall defects.

Authors:  J J Bauer; M T Harris; I Kreel; I M Gelernt
Journal:  Mt Sinai J Med       Date:  1999-01

8.  Complex torso reconstruction with human acellular dermal matrix: long-term clinical follow-up.

Authors:  Nicole L Nemeth; Charles E Butler
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  Abdominal wall reconstruction: lessons learned from 200 "components separation" procedures.

Authors:  Jason H Ko; Edward C Wang; David M Salvay; Benjamin C Paul; Gregory A Dumanian
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2009-11

10.  Acellular dermal matrix compared with synthetic implant material for repair of ventral hernia in the setting of peri-operative Staphylococcus aureus implant contamination: a rabbit model.

Authors:  Meghan L Milburn; Luther H Holton; Thomas L Chung; Edward N Li; Grant V Bochicchio; Nelson H Goldberg; Ronald P Silverman
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.150

View more
  24 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  A systematic review of the surgical treatment of large incisional hernia.

Authors:  E B Deerenberg; L Timmermans; D P Hogerzeil; J C Slieker; P H C Eilers; J Jeekel; J F Lange
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2014-11-08       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 3.  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 4.  A meta-analysis comparing open anterior component separation with posterior component separation and transversus abdominis release in the repair of midline ventral hernias.

Authors:  J D Hodgkinson; C A Leo; Y Maeda; P Bassett; S M Oke; C J Vaizey; J Warusavitarne
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Endoscopic anterior component separation: a novel technical approach.

Authors:  B Dauser; S Ghaffari; C Ng; T Schmid; G Köhler; F Herbst
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2017-09-23       Impact factor: 4.739

6.  Diastasis recti and primary midline ventral hernia: the plastic surgery approach.

Authors:  D P Baumann; C E Butler
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 7.  Component Separation vs. Bridged Repair for Large Ventral Hernias: A Multi-Institutional Risk-Adjusted Comparison, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Julie L Holihan; Eric P Askenasy; Jacob A Greenberg; Jerrod N Keith; Robert G Martindale; J Scott Roth; Jiandi Mo; Tien C Ko; Lillian S Kao; Mike K Liang
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 2.150

8.  Single port component separation: endoscopic external oblique release for complex ventral hernia repair.

Authors:  Kristen E Elstner; John W Read; Anita S W Jacombs; Rodrigo Tomazini Martins; Fernando Arduini; Peter H Cosman; Omar Rodriguez-Acevedo; Anthony N Dardano; Alex Karatassas; Nabeel Ibrahim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  [Operative therapy of secondary ventral hernia: technical principles].

Authors:  D Berger; A Lux
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 0.955

10.  How to perform the endoscopically assisted components separation technique (ECST) for large ventral hernia repair.

Authors:  E H H Mommers; J A Wegdam; S W Nienhuijs; T S de Vries Reilingh
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 4.739

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.