Ventral hernia and patient experience of an elastic girdle

Is There a Clinical Benefit of Abdominal Binders After Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Literature Review

Background

The incidence of incisional hernia following laparotomy varies between 2% and 30%. It is well-established that the need to control several risk factors prior to surgery exists (weight loss before surgery, diabetes control). Postoperative abdominal binder (AB) is often recommended by surgeons, yet evidence on this topic is lacking. The aim of this review was to present current evidence on the use of abdominal binders after abdominal surgery.

Material and Methods

A comprehensive literature review between January and May 2024 was conducted using a range of search engines, including PubMed, Science Direct, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Google. The following keywords were used: "abdominal binder," "abdominal support," "hernia," "girdle and hernia," "compression belt and hernia," and "abdominal support and hernia."

Results

Sixteen articles were selected for further analysis (7 RCTs, 6 non-RCTs and 3 meta-analyses). None of the studies reported a reduction in the incidence of abdominal dehiscence or incisional hernia. Postoperative use of the AB has been shown to reduce postoperative discomfort and pain for a limited period of up to 48-72 h. There was no discernible difference in the incidence of surgical site complications.

Conclusion

The current evidence indicates that the use of AB following abdominal surgery is safe, although no benefit has been established (except 48 h after surgery). AB may enhance comfort in select patients; however, further studies are necessary to justify their routine use, with a particular focus on the medical and economic implications.

The effect of different types of abdominal binders on intra-abdominal pressure

Objectives:

To investigate the effect of non-elastic/elastic abdominal binders on intra-vesical pressure (IVP), physiological functions, and clinical outcomes in laparotomy patients at the perioperative stage.

Methods:

This prospective study was conducted from May to October 2014 at the Trauma Surgery Department, Daping Hospital, Chongqing, China. Laparotomy patients were randomly divided into non-elastic abdominal binder group (28 patients), and elastic abdominal binder group (29 patients). Binders were applied for 14 days following the operation, or until discharge. Demographic information, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) scores (prior to the operation, on the first day after operation, the day IVP measurement was stopped, and one day before discharge), and outcomes were recorded. The IVP was measured before the operation to postoperative day 7.

Results:

There were no significant differences in the demographic information, outcomes, SOFA or APACHE-II scores between the 2 groups. Initial out-of-bed mobilization occurred earlier in the elastic binder group (3.2 ± 2.0 versus 5.0 ± 3.7 days, p=0.028). A greater increase in IVP was observed in the non-elastic binder group than in the elastic binder group (2.9 ± 1.1 versus 1.1 ± 0.7 mm Hg, p=0.000).

Conclusion:

Elastic binders have relatively little effect on IVP and are more helpful at promoting postoperative recovery than non-elastic binders. Therefore, elastic binders are more suitable for clinical use.