Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Hernia
Published in: Hernia 5/2014

01-10-2014 | Original Article

Endoscopic component separation for laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair: a single institutional comparison of outcomes and review of the technique

Authors: S. C. Azoury, A. P. Dhanasopon, X. Hui, S. H. Tuffaha, C. De La Cruz, C. Liao, M. Lovins, H. T. Nguyen

Published in: Hernia | Issue 5/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To our knowledge, there are limited small case series reports on endoscopic component separation (ECS) and no single institutional study comparing the difference in outcomes between laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repairs following endoscopic component separation.

Methods

A single institutional retrospective review was performed, identifying 42 patients who underwent endoscopic component separation at a single institution by a single surgeon for ventral hernia repair with prosthesis from 2010 to 2013. Seventeen patients underwent subsequent open ventral hernia repair (OHR) and 25 underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LHR). Demographics, surgical factors, wound complications and hernia occurrence post-operatively were reviewed.

Results

Surgical factors/demographics were similar between groups. All patients achieved primary fascial and skin closure. Operative time for the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than the open group (278 vs. 378 min; P = 0.0001), and there was a trend towards a shorter hospital stay in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 4 days; open, 5 days; P = 0.063). Estimated blood loss per case with ECS and subsequent laparoscopy was significantly lower than in the open cases (63 vs. 147 cc; P = 0.0017). In both groups, wound complications occurred in five patients (laparoscopic, 20 %; open, 29 %; P = 0.71). There was one midline hernia recurrence and two lateral abdominal wall hernia occurrences post-operatively in the laparoscopic group, whereas there were no midline and one lateral wall hernia occurrence in the open group.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing endoscopic component separation with subsequent laparoscopic fascial reapproximation had a significantly shorter operative time and estimated blood loss when compared with open fascial reapproximation. Wound complications were similar in both groups although there were a greater number of hernia occurrences post-operatively in the laparoscopic group, though of no statistical significance.
Literature
1.
Baghai M, Ramshaw BJ, Smith D, Fearing N, Bachman S, Ramaswamy A (2009) Technique of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair can be modified to successfully repair large defects in patients with loss of domain. Surg Innov 16(1):38–45PubMedCrossRef
2.
Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, Franz M, Hultman CS, Kilbridge JF, Rosen M, Silverman RP, Vargo D (2010) Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery 148(3):544–558PubMedCrossRef
3.
Sailes FC, Walls J, Guelig D, Mirzabeigi M, Long WD, Crawford A, Moore JH, Copit SE, Tuma GA, Fox J (2010) Synthetic and biological mesh in component separation. Ann Plast Surg 64(5):696–698PubMed
4.
Paul EM, Rosen MJ (2013) Open ventral hernia repair with component separation. Surg Clin N Am 93(5):1111–1133CrossRef
5.
Daes J (2014) Endoscopic subcutaneous approach to component separation. J Am Coll Surg 218(1):e1–e4PubMedCrossRef
6.
Harth KC, Rose J, Delaney CP, Blatnik JA, Halaweish I, Rosen MJ (2011) Open versus endoscopic component separation: a cost comparison. Surg Endosc 25:2865–2870PubMedCrossRef
7.
Orenstein SB, Dumeer JL, Monteagudo J, Poi MJ, Novitsky YW (2011) Outcomes of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with routine defect closure using “shoelacing” technique. Surg Endosc 25:1452–1457PubMedCrossRef
8.
Colavita PD, Tsirline VB, Belyanskky I, Walters AL, Lincourt AE, Sing RF, Heniford BT (2012) Prospective, long-term comparison of quality of life in laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg 256(5):714–723PubMedCrossRef
9.
Lowe JB, Garza JR, Bowman JL, Rohrich RJ, Strodel WE (2000) Endoscopically assisted “components separation” for closure of abdominal wall defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 105(2):720–729PubMedCrossRef
10.
Azoury SC, Nguyen HT (2013) Endoscopic component separation. In: Diaz JJ (ed) Abdominal wall defects: prevalence, surgical management strategies and clinical care outcomes. Management strategies, 1st edn. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 221–233
11.
Harth KC, Rosen MJ (2010) Endoscopic versus open component separation in complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg 199:342–347PubMedCrossRef
12.
Giurgius M, Bendure L, Davenport DL, Roth JS (2012) The endoscopic component separation technique for hernia repair results in reduced morbidity compared to the open component separation technique. Hernia 16:47–51PubMedCrossRef
13.
Kanters AE, Krpata DM, Blatnik JA, Novitsky YM, Rosen MJ (2012) Modified hernia grading scale to stratify surgical site occurrence after open ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 215(6):787–793PubMedCrossRef
14.
Skipworth JRA, Vyas S, Uppal L, Floyd D, Shankar A (2014) Improved outcomes in the management of high-risk incisional hernias utilizing biologic mesh and soft-tissue reconstruction: a single center experience. World J Surg 38(5):1026–1034PubMedCrossRef
15.
Dunne JR, Malone DL, Tracy JK, Napolitano LM (2003) Abdominal wall hernias: risk factors for infection and resources utilization. J Surg Res 111:78–84PubMedCrossRef
16.
Finan KR, Vick CC, Kiefe CI, Neumayer L, Hawn MT (2005) Predictors of wound infection in ventral hernia repair. Am J Surg 190:676–681PubMedCrossRef
17.
Richards PC, Balch CM, Aldrete JS (1983) Abdominal wound closure. A randomized prospective study of 571 patients comparing continuous vs. interrupted suture techniques. Ann Surg 197(2):238–243PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Endoscopic component separation for laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair: a single institutional comparison of outcomes and review of the technique
Authors
S. C. Azoury
A. P. Dhanasopon
X. Hui
S. H. Tuffaha
C. De La Cruz
C. Liao
M. Lovins
H. T. Nguyen
Publication date
01-10-2014
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
Hernia / Issue 5/2014
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Electronic ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1274-0

Other articles of this Issue 5/2014

Hernia 5/2014 Go to the issue

Original Article

Post-operative benefits of Tisseel®/Tissucol® for mesh fixation in patients undergoing Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair: secondary results from the TIMELI trial

Original Article

Parastomal hernia repair with a 3-D mesh device and additional flat mesh repair of the abdominal wall

Original Article

The impact of developing a comprehensive hernia center on the referral patterns and complexity of hernia care

Original Article

Wound dehiscence: outcome comparison for sutured and mesh reconstructed patients

Comment

Reply to Comment to "Update with level 1 studies of the European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients" W.J. Bökkerink, C.J. van Laarhoven, G.G. Koning. DOI 10.1007/s10029-014-1266-0

Original Article

Effect of botulinum toxin type A in lateral abdominal wall muscles thickness and length of patients with midline incisional hernia secondary to open abdomen management