Endoscopic single-port "components separation technique" for postoperative abdominal reconstruction

Anterior versus posterior component separation technique for advanced abdominal wall reconstruction: a proposed algorithm

OBJECTIVE

The precise indications for employing the anterior component separation technique (ACST) and the Transversus Abdominis Release (TAR) in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) remain uncertain, despite the undeniable value of both techniques. The aim of this study was to analyze the anterior fascial closure rate, postoperative wound morbidity, and hernia recurrence rate for both procedures according to the algorithm used for complex AWR.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was carried out. Patients undergoing AWR for midline incisional hernias using either open or endoscopic ACST (E-ACST) or TAR between March 2013 and August 2022 were included. Patients with lateral hernia components were excluded. The surgical technique was depending on the pre- and intraoperative findings regarding hernia width and on the estimated traction to achieve anterior fascial closure (see algorithm). Initially, intermediate hernia defects ranging from approximately 10-14 cm in width were repaired using E-ACST. However, as the study advanced, TAR became the preferred method for addressing these types of defects. Open ACST was consistently employed for defects wider than 14-15 cm throughout the entire study duration. Outcomes of interest were anterior fascial closure, surgical site occurrences, and hernia recurrence rate. Follow-up was performed at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients underwent AWR with CST: 63 patients (52.9%) were included in the ACST group and 56 patients (47.1%) in the TAR group. No significant differences were observed in patient and hernia characteristics. The use of botulinum toxin A (BTA) injection and preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum (PPP) was more frequently used in the ACST group (BTA 19.0%, PPP 15.9% versus BTA 5.4%, PPP 1.8% for TAR patients). Anterior fascial closure was achieved in 95.2% of the ACST group and 98.2% of the TAR group (p = 0.369). The TAR group demonstrated a significantly lower SSO rate at one month (44.3% versus 14.3%, p < 0.001) and required fewer procedural interventions (SSO-PI) (31.1% versus 8.9%, p = 0.003). The recurrence rate at one year was low and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (ACST 1.8% vs TAR 4.5%, p = 0.422).

CONCLUSION

Following a proposed algorithm, the anterior fascial closure rate was high and similar for both techniques. As postoperative wound morbidity is significantly increased after ACST, our findings support recommending TAR for defects up to 14 cm in width, while favoring open ACST for larger defects.

Conventional versus endoscopic components separation technique: New anthropometric calculation for selection of surgical approach

Background/aim

Giant ventral incisional hernias (GVIHs) are hard to manage for surgeons. This problem was resolved in 1990 with the components separation technique (CST). We aimed to compare endoscopic and conventional CST for GVIHs and find a new anthropometric calculation.

Materials and methods

In this prospective nonrandomized clinical trial, 21 patients were treated with endoscopic or conventional CST between 2012 and 2016. Eight patients (38.1%) were operated endoscopically and 13 (61.9%) conventionally on the basis of preoperative tomography results, hernia surface area (HSA), number of recent abdominal operations, comorbidities, and the presence or history of ostomy. Groups in which prosthetic material was applied were also compared with groups in which it was not.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference between endoscopic and conventional CST groups in terms of complications. A weakly statistically significant difference (P = 0.069) was found between the components separation index (CSI) of mesh-applied and not-applied patients. HSA/body surface area (BSA) was statistically significantly different between endoscopic and conventional CST groups.

Conclusion

According to our results, HSA/BSA and CSI are statistically successful for preoperative prediction of mesh placement. Furthermore, HSA/BSA preoperatively successfully predicts whether conventional or endoscopic CST should be used in patients with GVIH.