Oğuz HANÇERLİOĞULLARI, Mehmet Fatih CAN, Sezai DEMİRBAŞ, Yaşar Subutay PEKER

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 withthe components separation technique (CST). We aimed to compare endoscopic and conventional CST for GVIHs and find a newanthropometric calculation.Materials and methods: In this prospective nonrandomized clinical trial, 21 patients were treated with endoscopic or conventional CSTbetween 2012 and 2016. Eight patients (38.1%) were operated endoscopically and 13 (61.9%) conventionally on the basis of preoperativetomography results, hernia surface area (HSA), number of recent abdominal operations, comorbidities, and the presence or history ofostomy. 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 andnot-applied patients. HSA/body surface area (BSA) was statistically significantly different between endoscopic and conventional CSTgroups.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 withGVIH.

PDF

___

1. Beauchamp RD, Evers BM, Mattox KL. Sabiston Textbook of Surgery. 19th ed. Canada: Elsevier Saunders; 2012.
2. Kingsnorth AN, Leblanc KA. Karın Duvarı Fıtıkları Tedavi Yaklaşımları. Ankara, Turkey: Nobel Tıp Kitapevleri; 2007 (in Turkish).
3. Sayek İ. Temel Cerrahi. 4th ed. Ankara, Turkey: Güneş Tıp Kitapevleri; 2013 (in Turkish).
4. Brunicardi FC, Andersen DK, Billiar TR, Dunn DL, Hunter JG et al. Schwartz Cerrahinin İlkeleri. İstanbul, Turkey: İstanbul Baskı Evi; 2008 (in Turkish).
5. Sauba WW, Fink MP, Jurkovich GJ, Kaiser LR, Pearce WH et al. ACS Cerrahi İlkeler ve Uygulamalar. Ankara, Turkey: Güneş Tıp Kitabevi; 2012 (in Turkish).
6. Bisgaard T, Kehlet H, Bay-Nielsen MB, Iversen MG, Wara P et al. Nationwide study of early outcomes after incisional hernia repair. British Journal of Surgery 2009; 96 (12): 1452-1457.
7. Larson GM, Vandertoll DJ. Approaches to repair of ventral hernia and full-thickness losses of the abdominal wall. Surgical Clinics of North America 1984; 64 (2): 335-349.
8. Mathes SJ, Steinwald PM, Foster RD, Hoffman WY, Anthony JP. Complex abdominal wall reconstruction: A comparison of flap and mesh closure. Annals of Surgery 2000; 232 (4): 586- 594.
9. Lisiecki J, Kozlow JH, Agarwal S, Ranganathan K, Terjimanian MN et al. Abdominal wall dynamics after component separation hernia repair. Journal of Surgical Research 2015; 193 (1): 497-503.
10. Hood K, Millikan K, Pittman T, Zelhart M, Secemsky B et al. Abdominal wall reconstruction: a case series of ventral hernia repair using the component separation technique with biologic mesh. American Journal of Surgery 2013; 205 (3): 322-327.
11. Brunicardi FC, Andersen DK, Billiar TR, Dunn DL, Hunter JG et al. Schwartz’s Principles of Surgery. 10th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill; 2015.
12. Ramirez OM, Ruas E, Dellon AL. Components separation method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: An anatomic and clinical study. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1990; 86 (3): 519-526.
13. Rulli F, Villa M, Tucci G. Endoscopic single-port ‟components separation technique” for postoperative abdominal reconstruction. Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 2012; 8 (2): 62-64.
14. Daes J. Endoscopic subcutaneous approach to component separation. Journal of American College of Surgeons 2014; 218 (1): E1-E4.
15. Harth KC, Rosen MJ. Endoscopic versus open component separation in complex abdominal wall reconstruction. American Journal of Surgery 2010; 199 (3): 342-346.
16. Lane DM, Scott D, Hebl M, Guerra R, Osherson D et al. Introduction to Statistics. 1.4th ed. Interactive e-Book: David Lane; 2013.
17. Marston L. Introductory Statistics for Health and Nursing Using SPSS. London, UK: Sage Publication Ltd.; 2010.
18. Christy MR, Apostolides J, Rodriguez ED, Manson PN, Gens D et al. The component separation index: A standardized biometric identity in abdominal wall reconstruction. Eplasty 2012; 12: e17.
19. Lowe JB, Garza JR, Bowman JL, Rohrich RJ, Strodel WE. Endoscopically assisted ‟components separation” for closure of abdominal wall defects. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2000; 105 (2): 720-729.
20. Ng N, Wampler M, Palladino H, Agullo F, Davis BR. Open versus endoscopic component separation: A cost comparison. American Surgeon 2015; 81 (7): 714-719.
21. Azoury SC, Dhanasopon AP, Hui X, De La Cruz C, Tuffaha SH et al. A single institutional comparison of endoscopic and open abdominal component separation. Surgical Endoscopy 2014; 28 (12): 3349-3358.
22. Fox M, Cannon RM, Egger M, Spate K, Kehdy FJ. Laparoscopic component separation reduces postoperative wound complications but does not alter recurrence rates in complex hernia repairs. American Journal of Surgery 2013; 206 (6): 869- 874.
23. Giurgius M, Bendure L, Davenport DL, Roth JS. The endoscopic component separation technique for hernia repair results in reduced morbidity compared to the open component separation technique. Hernia 2012; 16 (1): 47-51.
24. Ghali S, Turza KC, Baumann DP, Butler CE. Minimally invasive component separation results in fewer woundhealing complications than open component separation for large ventral hernia repairs. Journal of American College of Surgeons 2012; 214 (6): 981-989.
25. Harth KC, Rose J, Delaney CP, Blatnik JA, Halaweish I et al. Open versus endoscopic component separation: A cost comparison. Surgical Endoscopy 2011; 25 (9): 2865-2870.
26. Albright E, Diaz D, Davenport D, Roth JS. The component separation technique for hernia repair: A comparison of open and endoscopic techniques. The American Surgeon 2011; 77 (7): 839-843.
27. Jensen KK, Henriksen NA, Jorgensen LN. Endoscopic component separation for ventral hernia causes fewer wound complications compared to open components separation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques 2014; 28 (11): 3046-3052.
28. Azoury SC, Dhanasopon AP, Hui X, Tuffaha SH, De La Cruz C et al. Endoscopic component separation for laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair: A single institutional comparison of outcomes and review of the technique. Hernia 2014; 18 (5): 637-645.
29. Todd H, Diaz D, Roth J. Rhabdomyolysis: An unusual complication following endoscopic component separation hernia repair. Journal of Surgical Case Reports 2012; 2012 (9): 18.
30. Lahiri A, Duff CG, Brown TL, Griffiths RW. Anthropometric measurements and their value in predicting complications following reduction mammaplasty and abdominoplasty. Annals of Plastic Surgery 2006; 56 (3): 248-250.
31. Mackay DR, Stevenson JC. Spigelian herniation after component separation. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2008; 122 (5): 155e-156e.
32. Blair LJ, Ross SW, Huntington CR, Watkins JD, Prasad T et al. Computed tomographic measurements predict component separation in ventral hernia repair. Journal of Surgical Research 2015; 199 (2): 420-427.