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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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