Literature DB >> 30168007

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with and without defect closure: comparative analysis of a single-institution experience with 783 patients.

Luis A Martin-Del-Campo1, Heidi J Miller1, Heidi L Elliott1, Yuri W Novitsky2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) has gained popularity, since it can decrease the incidence of surgical site complications while providing similar recurrence rates as open repairs. The role of defect closure in LVHR has been a subject of controversy and has not been fully elucidated. We aimed to compare outcomes of LVHR with and without defect closure in a contemporary cohort.
METHODS: Single-institution retrospective review of consecutive adults undergoes elective LVHR for 2-8 cm defects. Demographics, perioperative, and post-operative data were included for analysis. Surgical site events (SSE), surgical site infection (SSI), and recurrence were the main measured outcomes. Abdominal CT scan was used to differentiate true recurrence from pseudo-recurrence.
RESULTS: A total of 783 patients were analyzed. 222 of them had their defects closed (DC), while the remaining 561 defects were not closed (NC) at the discretion/routine of the operating surgeon. Patients were slightly older in the non-closure group, while those in the defect closure group had a significantly higher BMI. There were no other differences in demographics between groups. After a mean follow-up of 12.1 months, the incidence of surgical site events (3.6 vs 14.9%, p < 0.0001) and seromas (0.4 vs 11.5%, p < 0.0001) was significantly lower in the defect closure group. Objectively confirmed recurrences were also significantly lower in the DC group (5.4 vs 14.2%, p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, the addition of defect closure can reduce the incidence of surgical site events, seroma, and hernia recurrence after LVHR. We advocate for routine closure of defects when laparoscopic repair is chosen for small-to-mid-sized ventral hernias.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Defect closure; IPOM; Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair; Seroma

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30168007     DOI: 10.1007/s10029-018-1812-2

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


  21 in total

1.  Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

Authors:  A J Mangram; T C Horan; M L Pearson; L C Silver; W R Jarvis
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.254

2.  Functional abdominal wall reconstruction improves core physiology and quality-of-life.

Authors:  Cory N Criss; Clayton C Petro; David M Krpata; Christina M Seafler; Nicola Lai; Justin Fiutem; Yuri W Novitsky; Michael J Rosen
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.982

3.  Outcomes of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with routine defect closure using "shoelacing" technique.

Authors:  Sean B Orenstein; Jillian L Dumeer; Julie Monteagudo; Mun Jye Poi; Yuri W Novitsky
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-11-05       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Laparoscopic repair of incisional abdominal hernias using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene: preliminary findings.

Authors:  K A LeBlanc; W V Booth
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc       Date:  1993-02

Review 5.  Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair.

Authors:  Stefan Sauerland; Maren Walgenbach; Brigitte Habermalz; Christoph M Seiler; Marc Miserez
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-03-16

Review 6.  A systematic review of laparoscopic versus open abdominal incisional hernia repair, with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Hasanin Al Chalabi; John Larkin; Brian Mehigan; Paul McCormick
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 6.071

7.  Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with primary fascial closure versus bridged repair: a risk-adjusted comparative study.

Authors:  John Emil Wennergren; Erik P Askenasy; Jacob A Greenberg; Julie Holihan; Jerrod Keith; Mike K Liang; Robert G Martindale; Skylar Trott; Margaret Plymale; John Scott Roth
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Comparative analysis of biologic versus synthetic mesh outcomes in contaminated hernia repairs.

Authors:  Arnab Majumder; Joshua S Winder; Yuxiang Wen; Eric M Pauli; Igor Belyansky; Yuri W Novitsky
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 9.  Closure versus non-closure of hernia defect during laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with mesh.

Authors:  M S Zeichen; H J Lujan; W N Mata; V H Maciel; D Lee; I Jorge; G Plasencia; E Gomez; A M Hernandez
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 4.739

10.  Laparoscopic sutured closure with mesh reinforcement of incisional hernias.

Authors:  C Palanivelu; K V Jani; P Senthilnathan; R Parthasarathi; M V Madhankumar; V K Malladi
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2007-02-13       Impact factor: 2.920

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Primary non-complicated midline ventral hernia: is laparoscopic IPOM still a reasonable approach?

Authors:  S Van Hoef; T Tollens
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 4.739

2.  Primary closure of the midline abdominal wall defect during laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: analysis of risk factors for failure and outcomes at 5 years follow-up.

Authors:  Julio Gómez-Menchero; Andrea Balla; Ana Fernández Carazo; Salvador Morales-Conde
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Laparoscopic intraperitoneal versus enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal retromuscular mesh repair for ventral hernia: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Nam H Bui; Lars N Jørgensen; Kristian K Jensen
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 4.584

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.