K Siddique1, A Shrestha, S Basu. 1. Department of Surgery, East Kent University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Ashford, Kent, UK, sk.sid@hotmail.co.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repair of primary and recurrent giant incisional herniae is extremely challenging and more so in the face of surgical field contamination. Literature supports the single- and multi-staged approaches including the use of biological meshes for these difficult patients with their associated benefits and limitations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective study of five patients who were successfully treated through a multi-staged approach but in the same hospital admission, not previously described, for the repair of contaminated primary and recurrent giant incisional herniae in a district general hospital between 2009 and 2012. Patient demographics including their BMI and ASA, previous and current operative history including complications and follow-up were collected in a secure database. The first stage involved the eradication of contamination, and the second stage was the definitive hernia repair with the new generation-coated synthetic meshes. RESULTS: Of the five patients, three were men and two women with a mean age of 58 (45-74) years. Two patients had grade 4 while the remaining had grade 3 hernia as per the hernia grading system with a mean BMI of 35 (30-46). All patients required extensive adhesiolysis, bowel resection and anastomoses and wash out. Hernial defect was measured as 204* (105-440) cm(2), size of mesh implant was 568* (375-930) cm(2) and the total duration of operation (1st + 2nd Stage) was 354* (270-540) min. Duration of hospital stay was 11* (7-19) days with a follow-up of 17* (6-36) months. CONCLUSION: We believe that our multi-staged approach in the same hospital admission (for the repair of contaminated primary and recurrent giant incisional herniae), excludes the disadvantages of a true multi-staged approach and simultaneously minimises the risks and complications associated with a single-staged repair, can be adopted for these challenging patients for a successful outcome (* indicates mean).
BACKGROUND: Repair of primary and recurrent giant incisional herniae is extremely challenging and more so in the face of surgical field contamination. Literature supports the single- and multi-staged approaches including the use of biological meshes for these difficult patients with their associated benefits and limitations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective study of five patients who were successfully treated through a multi-staged approach but in the same hospital admission, not previously described, for the repair of contaminated primary and recurrent giant incisional herniae in a district general hospital between 2009 and 2012. Patient demographics including their BMI and ASA, previous and current operative history including complications and follow-up were collected in a secure database. The first stage involved the eradication of contamination, and the second stage was the definitive hernia repair with the new generation-coated synthetic meshes. RESULTS: Of the five patients, three were men and two women with a mean age of 58 (45-74) years. Two patients had grade 4 while the remaining had grade 3 hernia as per the hernia grading system with a mean BMI of 35 (30-46). All patients required extensive adhesiolysis, bowel resection and anastomoses and wash out. Hernial defect was measured as 204* (105-440) cm(2), size of mesh implant was 568* (375-930) cm(2) and the total duration of operation (1st + 2nd Stage) was 354* (270-540) min. Duration of hospital stay was 11* (7-19) days with a follow-up of 17* (6-36) months. CONCLUSION: We believe that our multi-staged approach in the same hospital admission (for the repair of contaminated primary and recurrent giant incisional herniae), excludes the disadvantages of a true multi-staged approach and simultaneously minimises the risks and complications associated with a single-staged repair, can be adopted for these challenging patients for a successful outcome (* indicates mean).
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
Authors: Tomio Ueno; Lisa Clark Pickett; Sebastian G de la Fuente; D Curtis Lawson; Theodore N Pappas Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.452