Literature DB >> 27038053

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

E H H Mommers1,2, J A Wegdam3, S W Nienhuijs4, T S de Vries Reilingh3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The components separation technique (CST) is frequently used for reconstructing large ventral hernias. Unfortunately, it is associated with a high wound complication rate up to 50 %, caused by large wound surface and inherent trauma to abdominal skin vascularization. An endoscopically assisted modification of the original technique (ECST) spares skin vascularization and reduces wound surface, supposedly reducing wound complications. This study accurately describes ECST step by step with detailed illustrations and report the results of a 27 patient cohort.
METHODS: Since September 2012 patients with midline hernias without previous subcutaneous dissection and a maximum diameter of approximately 10-15 cm underwent ECST in an expert centre for abdominal wall reconstructions. Prospective data was gathered during inpatient care and 3-6 monthly follow-up.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (17 male/10 female) with median age of 60 years (range 35-77), average BMI 27 (SD ±2) kg/m(2) and median ASA classification 2 (range 1-3) underwent ECST. Two patients were excluded due to bilateral conversion to conventional CST and finding of peritoneal metastases. Median defect size was 116 ± 48 cm(2). Median length of stay was 5 days (range 3-15). Wound complication rate was 11 %. Recurrence rate was 29 % after a median follow-up of 13 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopically assisted modification of the original technique can be used for reconstructing large and complex ventral hernias up to 15 cm in diameter. The results of this small sized cohort study showed that ECST is feasible in patients with a uro-, or enterostomy and suggest that ECST reduces wound complication rate when compared to CST.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complications; Endoscopic components separation technique; Ventral hernia; Wound complications

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27038053     DOI: 10.1007/s10029-016-1485-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hernia        ISSN: 1248-9204            Impact factor:   4.739


  21 in total

1.  Endoscopically assisted "components separation technique" for the repair of complicated ventral hernias.

Authors:  Sylvester M Maas; ReilinghTammo S de Vries; Harry van Goor; Dick de Jong; Robert P Bleichrodt
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  The endoscopic component separation technique for hernia repair results in reduced morbidity compared to the open component separation technique.

Authors:  M Giurgius; L Bendure; D L Davenport; J S Roth
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 4.739

3.  Endoscopic versus open component separation in complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

Authors:  Karem C Harth; Michael J Rosen
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  "Components separation" method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study.

Authors:  O M Ramirez; E Ruas; A L Dellon
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  The component separation technique for hernia repair: a comparison of open and endoscopic techniques.

Authors:  Emily Albright; Dennis Diaz; Daniel Davenport; John S Roth
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 0.688

Review 6.  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

7.  CDC guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections, 1985. Supersedes guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections published in 1982. (Originally published in November 1985). Revised.

Authors:  J S Garner
Journal:  Infect Control       Date:  1986-03

8.  Criteria for definition of a complex abdominal wall hernia.

Authors:  N J Slater; A Montgomery; F Berrevoet; A M Carbonell; A Chang; M Franklin; K W Kercher; B J Lammers; E Parra-Davilla; S Roll; S Towfigh; E van Geffen; J Conze; H van Goor
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 4.739

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

Authors:  Shadi Ghali; Kristin C Turza; Donald P Baumann; Charles E Butler
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-04-21       Impact factor: 6.113

10.  Endoscopic component separation for ventral hernia causes fewer wound complications compared to open components separation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kristian K Jensen; Nadia A Henriksen; Lars N Jorgensen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  A modified Chevrel technique for ventral hernia repair: long-term results of a single centre cohort.

Authors:  E H H Mommers; B J M Leenders; W K G Leclercq; T S de Vries Reilingh; J A Charbon
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 4.739

3.  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
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.