Three-year outcome after anterior component separation repair of giant ventral hernias: A retrospective analysis of the original technique without mesh

Anterior component separation techniques: is it necessary to preserve the perforators? a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anterior component separation (ACS), or Ramirez component separation technique, is an established technique still used by surgeons to repair a ventral hernia. Compared with other ventral hernia repair techniques, recent studies about ACS show more postoperative complications like wound breakdown, wound infection, hematoma, skin necrosis, seroma, and recurrence. Our study aims to compare the ACS technique with the preservation perforator technique and verify if the perforator preservation technique can decrease postoperative complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cochrane Central, Embase, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing the perforator-sparing ACS ventral hernia repair and the standard technique. Outcomes assessed were wound breakdown, skin necrosis, wound infection, seroma, hematoma, reoperation, and recurrence at least 3 months postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio.

RESULTS

94 studies were screened, and 11 studies were selected for full-text reading. Seven studies were selected, comprising 761 patients, of which 309 (40.6%) underwent the perforator-sparing ACS technique. We found lower wound breakdown rates for the preservation technique (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.32; 0.63; p < 0.01). Also, the perforator-sparing technique presented lower reoperation rates (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35; 0.72; p < 0.01). No differences were found in skin necrosis (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.03; 1.63; p = 0.14), wound infection (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.25; 1.90; p = 0.47), seroma (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.07; 1.26; p = 0.1), hematoma (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.11; 5.06; p = 0.75), or recurrence (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.37; 1.74; p = 0.59) rates.

CONCLUSION

Our comprehensive systematic review with meta-analysis compared the perforator-sparing ACS with the standard technique and found lower wound breakdown and reoperation rates for the perforator-sparing technique. No differences were found in the other outcomes analyzed.

Botulinum Toxin and Progressive Pneumoperitoneum in Loss of Domain Ventral Hernias: A Systematic Review

Introduction: Preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum (PPP) and botulinum toxin A (BTX) have been used together in the preoperative preparation of patients with loss of domain hernias. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combined use of PPP and BTX. Methods: A systematic electronic search was performed according to the PRISMA criteria. A literature search of scientific articles was conducted up to December 2023. Articles were chosen based on the reference to BTX and PPP in loss of domain ventral hernias with a defect width greater than 10 cm before surgery. The GRADE methodology and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of the studies. Results: The research yielded seven articles, with 217 patients analysed in total. BTX was performed 29.5 ± 1.7 days before surgery and PPP was inflated 14.8 ± 5.8 days before surgery. PPP complications were reported in 25.6% of patients, The average reduction of the volume of hernia (VH)/volume of the abdominal cavity (VAC) ratio was 7.6% (range 0.9%-15%). Only 40 patients (18.4%) required a PCS or TAR to repair the loss of domain hernias. The SSI and SSO rates were 17.5% and 26.2%, respectively. No differences in SSI and SSO rates were found between the different repair techniques. The recurrence rate was 5.9% (13/217). Recurrence was significantly higher in patients who underwent IPOM repair than other techniques (p < 0.001). Conclusion: BTX and PPP may be useful tools for the management of loss of domain hernias presenting lower SSI and SSO. The combination of BTX and PPP reduces the use of more invasive repair techniques.

Double-Breasted Anterior Rectus Sheath Turnover Flap

The management of the open abdomen follows wound management with temporary abdominal closure prior to definitive closure while concurrently managing patient nutrient and fluid losses. This case report describes the successful use of double-breasted anterior rectus sheath turnover (DART) flap for early open abdomen closure to facilitate oncological management. The patient is a 47-year-old female with uterine smooth muscle neoplasm whose laparotomy wound was complicated with abdominal wound dehiscence and intra-abdominal infection. The abdomen could be closed with no fistula formation, iatrogenic bowel perforations, or overlying skin necrosis, and a follow-up showed no hernia occurrence. In conclusion, the DART flap provides a simple and autologous option for early tension-free midline closure of the open abdomen with acceptable intra- and postoperative complications.

Impact of combined component separation technique and shoelace repair on big medline abdominal wall defect

BACKGROUND

Closure of large anterior abdominal wall defects, regardless of their etiology, is challenging. There is no standardized information describing definitive management. Therefore, we conducted this study to illustrate our experience on large midline abdominal wall defect repair using an effective modified reconstructive technique.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted at Al Naqib Hospital in Aden/Yemen between 2012 and 2019. Twenty-six patients with large midline abdominal wall defects of various etiologies underwent surgical repair using a combination of shoelace repair and the component separation technique. The procedure involved bilateral longitudinal division of the anterior rectus sheet and creation of a posterior layer by approximation of the medial edges of the divided rectus sheet (shoelace abdominoplasty) and anterior external oblique muscle aponeurosis separation (component separation technique) to approximate the lateral edges of the divided rectus sheet and move the rectus muscles toward the midline for constructing the anterior abdominal wall layer. The posterior and anterior layers and bilateral separated sheets were covered with a polypropylene mesh in all patients, except in those who underwent emergency damage control surgery.

RESULTS

Four, one, and two patients developed seroma, skin necrosis and chronic pain, and post-surgical wound infection, respectively. No recurrent herniation was recorded during the median follow-up of 5 years.

CONCLUSION

This technique is effective in restoring the integrity of the abdominal wall in large midline abdominal wall defects and has an acceptable aesthetic appearance. In our study, minimal complications were reported, and no cases of recurrent hernias were diagnosed during follow-up.

What is the ideal mesh location for incisional hernia prevention during elective laparotomy? A network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia (IH) represents an important complication after surgery. Prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) with different mesh locations [onlay (OL), retromuscular (RM), preperitoneal (PP), and intraperitoneal (IP)] has been described to possibly reduce the risk of postoperative IH. However, data reporting the 'ideal' mesh location are sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal mesh location for IH prevention during elective laparotomy.

METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OL, RM, PP, IP, and no mesh (NM) were compared. The primary aim was postoperative IH. Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to assess relative inference.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (2332 patients) were included. Overall, 1052 (45.1%) had no mesh (NM) while 1280 (54.9%) underwent PMR stratified in IP ( n =344 pts), PP ( n =52 pts), RM ( n =463 pts), and OL ( n =421 pts) placement. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 67 months. RM (RR=0.34; 95% CrI: 0.10-0.81) and OL (RR=0.15; 95% CrI: 0.044-0.35) were associated with significantly reduced IH RR compared to NM. A tendency toward reduced IH RR was noticed for PP versus NM (RR=0.16; 95% CrI: 0.018-1.01), while no differences were found for IP versus NM (RR=0.59; 95% CrI: 0.19-1.81). Seroma, hematoma, surgical site infection, 90-day mortality, operative time and hospital length of stay were comparable among treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

RM or OL mesh placement seems associated with reduced IH RR compared to NM. PP location appears promising; however, future studies are warranted to corroborate this preliminary indication.

The outcomes of open anterior component separation versus posterior component separation with transversus abdominis release for complex incisional hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The main objective was to assess the prevalence of hernia recurrence, wound complications (surgical site infections [SSI], seroma and hematoma) and mortality after anterior component separation (ACS) and posterior component separation via transversus abdominis muscle release (PCSTAR) in patients with complex incisional hernias. The so-called complex IH is a serious medical and societal challenge due to its direct and indirect costs; it is also hampered by the use of different surgical techniques, different type of meshes, and different results heterogeneously reported and interpreted. According to actual data, the best approach seems to be a mesh reinforcement component separation procedure augmented or not with an adjuvant technique (preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum and/or Botulin toxin type A infiltration).

METHODS

A systematic search of four databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholars) was conducted to identify studies reporting on outcomes of component separation techniques and which were published before December 2021. A systematic review and a meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes were performed.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies including 3412 patients (1709 with ACS and 1703 with PCSTAR) were selected. Pooled hernia recurrence rate after a minimum 1-year follow-up was evaluated at 5.15% (odds ratio [OR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-0.9; p = 0.0175). Pooled surgical site infection rate was 10.6% (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06-1.65; p = 0.0119). Seroma and hematoma were estimated at 9.75% (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.52-2.44; p = 0.0001) and 3.83% (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.26-2.61; p = 0.0012), respectively. ACS was associated with increased wound morbidity, seroma and hematoma. PCSTAR displayed higher recurrence rate (4.27% vs 6.11%).

CONCLUSIONS

PCSTAR was superior to ACS in terms of wound morbidity, surgical site infections, seroma and hematoma incidence. The procedure should be further evaluated in comparative head-to-head randomized controlled trials.