Literature DB >> 31630827

The use of component separation during abdominal wall reconstruction in contaminated fields: A case-control analysis.

Sean R Maloney1, Vedra A Augenstein1, Erling Oma2, Kathryn A Schlosser1, Tanushree Prasad1, Kent W Kercher1, Ronald F Sing1, Paul D Colavita1, B Todd Heniford3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Component separation technique (CST) allows fascial medialization during abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). Wound contamination increases the incidence of wound complications, which multiplies the incidence of repair failure. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of CST on AWR outcomes in contaminated fields in comparison to those operations without CST.
METHODS: A prospective, single institution hernia database was queried for patients undergoing AWR with CST and contamination. A case control cohort was identified using propensity score matching.
RESULTS: There were 286 CSTs performed in contaminated cases. After propensity score matching, 61 CSTs were compared to 61 No-CSTs. These groups were matched by defect area (CST:287.1 ± 150.4 vs No-CST:277.6 ± 218.4 cm2, p = 0.156), BMI (32.0 ± 7.0 vs 32.2 ± 6.0 kg/m2, p = 0.767), diabetes (26.2% vs 32.8%, p = 0.427), and panniculectomy (52.5% vs 36.1%, p = 0.068). Groups had similar rates of wound complications (42.6% vs 40.7%, p = 0.829) and recurrence (4.9% vs 13.1%, p = 0.114).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of CST in the face of contamination is not associated with an increase in wound complications, mesh complications, or recurrence.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abdominal wall reconstruction; Complication; Component separation; Contamination; Hernia; Recurrence

Year:  2019        PMID: 31630827     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.10.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  5 in total

Review 1.  Synthetic Mesh in Contaminated Abdominal Wall Surgery: Friend or Foe? A Literature Review.

Authors:  Emmanuel E Sadava; Camila Bras Harriott; Cristian A Angeramo; Francisco Schlottmann
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2021-09-29       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Outcomes of biologic versus synthetic mesh in CDC class 3 and 4 open abdominal wall reconstruction.

Authors:  Michael Katzen; Sullivan A Ayuso; Jana Sacco; Dau Ku; Gregory T Scarola; Kent W Kercher; Paul D Colavita; Vedra A Augenstein; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 3.453

3.  Delayed primary closure (DPC) of the skin and subcutaneous tissues following complex, contaminated abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR): a propensity-matched study.

Authors:  Sullivan A Ayuso; Sharbel A Elhage; Bola G Aladegbami; Angela M Kao; Kent W Kercher; Paul D Colavita; Vedra A Augenstein; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Long-term follow-up of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after emergency laparotomy. A retrospective controlled study.

Authors:  A Bravo-Salva; N Argudo-Aguirre; A M González-Castillo; E Membrilla-Fernandez; J J Sancho-Insenser; L Grande-Posa; M Pera-Román; J A Pereira-Rodríguez
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Reconstructing abdominal wall defects with a free composite tissue flap: A case report.

Authors:  Jun Wang
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 1.337

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.