Kristian Kiim Jensen1, Andreas Nordholm-Carstensen2, Peter-Martin Krarup2, Lars Nannestad Jorgensen2. 1. Digestive Disease Center, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400, Copenhagen NV, Denmark. mail@kristiankiim.dk. 2. Digestive Disease Center, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400, Copenhagen NV, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It remains unknown whether laparoscopic compared to open surgery translates into fewer incisional hernia repairs (IHR). The objectives of the current study were to compare the long-term incidence of IHR and the size of repaired hernias between patients subjected to laparoscopic or open resection of colonic cancer. METHODS: This was a nationwide cohort study comprised of patients undergoing resection for colonic cancer between January 2007 and March 2016 according to the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients who subsequently underwent IHR were identified in the Danish Ventral Hernia Database, from which information about the priority of the hernia repair and the size of the fascial defect was retrieved. RESULTS: The study included 17,717 patients, of whom 482 (2.7%) underwent subsequent IHR during a median follow-up of 4.7 (interquartile range 2.8-6.9) years. There was no significant difference in the 5-year cumulative incidence of hernia repair after laparoscopic compared to open colonic resection (3.9%, CI 3.3-4.4% vs 4.1%, CI 3.5-4.6%). After adjustment for confounders, laparoscopic approach was associated with an increased rate of emergency IHR (HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.03-5.46, P = 0.042) as opposed to elective IHR (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73-1.14, P = 0.442). Laparoscopic surgery was significantly associated with a decreased fascial defect area compared to open surgery (mean difference -16.0 cm2, 95% CI -29.4 to -2.5, P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the incidence of IHR after open compared to laparoscopic resection. Compared to the open approach, laparoscopic resection increased the rate of subsequent emergency IHR, suggesting that a more aggressive therapeutic approach may be warranted in this patient group upon diagnosis of an incisional hernia.
BACKGROUND: It remains unknown whether laparoscopic compared to open surgery translates into fewer incisional hernia repairs (IHR). The objectives of the current study were to compare the long-term incidence of IHR and the size of repaired hernias between patients subjected to laparoscopic or open resection of colonic cancer. METHODS: This was a nationwide cohort study comprised of patients undergoing resection for colonic cancer between January 2007 and March 2016 according to the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients who subsequently underwent IHR were identified in the Danish Ventral Hernia Database, from which information about the priority of the hernia repair and the size of the fascial defect was retrieved. RESULTS: The study included 17,717 patients, of whom 482 (2.7%) underwent subsequent IHR during a median follow-up of 4.7 (interquartile range 2.8-6.9) years. There was no significant difference in the 5-year cumulative incidence of hernia repair after laparoscopic compared to open colonic resection (3.9%, CI 3.3-4.4% vs 4.1%, CI 3.5-4.6%). After adjustment for confounders, laparoscopic approach was associated with an increased rate of emergency IHR (HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.03-5.46, P = 0.042) as opposed to elective IHR (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73-1.14, P = 0.442). Laparoscopic surgery was significantly associated with a decreased fascial defect area compared to open surgery (mean difference -16.0 cm2, 95% CI -29.4 to -2.5, P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the incidence of IHR after open compared to laparoscopic resection. Compared to the open approach, laparoscopic resection increased the rate of subsequent emergency IHR, suggesting that a more aggressive therapeutic approach may be warranted in this patient group upon diagnosis of an incisional hernia.
Authors: Laura K Altom; Christopher W Snyder; Stephen H Gray; Laura A Graham; Catherine C Vick; Mary T Hawn Journal: Am Surg Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: K E Poruk; N Farrow; F Azar; K K Burce; C W Hicks; S C Azoury; P Cornell; C M Cooney; F E Eckhauser Journal: Hernia Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: G W Taylor; D G Jayne; S R Brown; H Thorpe; J M Brown; S C Dewberry; M C Parker; P J Guillou Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: David M Krpata; Brian J Schmotzer; Susan Flocke; Judy Jin; Jeffrey A Blatnik; Bridget Ermlich; Yuri W Novitsky; Michael J Rosen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: C Stabilini; M A Garcia-Urena; F Berrevoet; D Cuccurullo; S Capoccia Giovannini; M Dajko; L Rossi; K Decaestecker; M López Cano Journal: Hernia Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 4.739