PURPOSE: To our knowledge, there are limited small case series reports on endoscopic component separation (ECS) and no single institutional study comparing the difference in outcomes between laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repairs following endoscopic component separation. METHODS: A single institutional retrospective review was performed, identifying 42 patients who underwent endoscopic component separation at a single institution by a single surgeon for ventral hernia repair with prosthesis from 2010 to 2013. Seventeen patients underwent subsequent open ventral hernia repair (OHR) and 25 underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LHR). Demographics, surgical factors, wound complications and hernia occurrence post-operatively were reviewed. RESULTS: Surgical factors/demographics were similar between groups. All patients achieved primary fascial and skin closure. Operative time for the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than the open group (278 vs. 378 min; P = 0.0001), and there was a trend towards a shorter hospital stay in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 4 days; open, 5 days; P = 0.063). Estimated blood loss per case with ECS and subsequent laparoscopy was significantly lower than in the open cases (63 vs. 147 cc; P = 0.0017). In both groups, wound complications occurred in five patients (laparoscopic, 20 %; open, 29 %; P = 0.71). There was one midline hernia recurrence and two lateral abdominal wall hernia occurrences post-operatively in the laparoscopic group, whereas there were no midline and one lateral wall hernia occurrence in the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing endoscopic component separation with subsequent laparoscopic fascial reapproximation had a significantly shorter operative time and estimated blood loss when compared with open fascial reapproximation. Wound complications were similar in both groups although there were a greater number of hernia occurrences post-operatively in the laparoscopic group, though of no statistical significance.
PURPOSE: To our knowledge, there are limited small case series reports on endoscopic component separation (ECS) and no single institutional study comparing the difference in outcomes between laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repairs following endoscopic component separation. METHODS: A single institutional retrospective review was performed, identifying 42 patients who underwent endoscopic component separation at a single institution by a single surgeon for ventral hernia repair with prosthesis from 2010 to 2013. Seventeen patients underwent subsequent open ventral hernia repair (OHR) and 25 underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LHR). Demographics, surgical factors, wound complications and hernia occurrence post-operatively were reviewed. RESULTS: Surgical factors/demographics were similar between groups. All patients achieved primary fascial and skin closure. Operative time for the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than the open group (278 vs. 378 min; P = 0.0001), and there was a trend towards a shorter hospital stay in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 4 days; open, 5 days; P = 0.063). Estimated blood loss per case with ECS and subsequent laparoscopy was significantly lower than in the open cases (63 vs. 147 cc; P = 0.0017). In both groups, wound complications occurred in five patients (laparoscopic, 20 %; open, 29 %; P = 0.71). There was one midline hernia recurrence and two lateral abdominal wall hernia occurrences post-operatively in the laparoscopic group, whereas there were no midline and one lateral wall hernia occurrence in the open group. CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing endoscopic component separation with subsequent laparoscopic fascial reapproximation had a significantly shorter operative time and estimated blood loss when compared with open fascial reapproximation. Wound complications were similar in both groups although there were a greater number of hernia occurrences post-operatively in the laparoscopic group, though of no statistical significance.
Authors: Paul D Colavita; Victor B Tsirline; Igor Belyansky; Amanda L Walters; Amy E Lincourt; Ronald F Sing; B Todd Heniford Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-11 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: Alvaro Robin-Lersundi; Luis Blazquez Hernando; Javier López-Monclús; Arturo Cruz Cidoncha; Carlos San Miguel Méndez; Elena Jimenez Cubedo; Miguel Angel García-Ureña Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2018-03-03 Impact factor: 3.445
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: S G Parker; S Halligan; M Erotocritou; C P J Wood; R W Boulton; A A O Plumb; A C J Windsor; S Mallett Journal: Hernia Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 4.739