Left lower transverse incision versus Pfannenstiel-Kerr incision for specimen extraction in laparoscopic sigmoidectomy: a match pair analysis

Incisional hernia rates between intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in minimally invasive ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease

PURPOSE

One-third of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) require multiple surgeries during their lifetime. So, reducing the incisional hernia rate is crucial. We aimed to define incisional hernia rates after minimally invasive ileocolic resection for CD, comparing intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision (ICA-P) versus extracorporeal anastomosis with midline vertical incision (ECA-M).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort compares ICA-P versus ECA-M from a prospectively maintained database of consecutive minimally invasive ileocolic resections for CD performed between 2014 and 2021 in a referral center.

RESULTS

Of the 249 patients included: 59 were in the ICA-P group, 190 in the ECA-M group. Both groups were similar according to baseline and preoperative characteristics. Overall, 22 (8.8%) patients developed an imaging-proven incisional hernia: seven at the port-site and 15 at the extraction-site. All 15 extraction-site incisional hernias were midline vertical incisions [7.9%; p = 0.025], and 8 patients (53%) required surgical repair. Time-to-event analysis showed a 20% rate of extraction-site incisional hernia in the ECA-M group after 48 months (p = 0.037). The length of stay was lower in the intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision group [ICA-P: 3.3 ± 2.5 vs. ECA-M: 4.1 ± 2.4 days; p = 0.02] with similar 30-day postoperative complication [11(18.6) vs. 59(31.1); p = 0.064] and readmission rates [7(11.9) vs. 18(9.5); p = 0.59].

CONCLUSION

Patients in the ICA-P group did not encounter any incisional hernias while having shorter hospital length of stay and similar 30-day postoperative complications or readmission compared to ECA-M. Therefore, more consideration should be given to performing intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision during Ileocolic resection in patients with CD to reduce hernia risk.

Incisional Hernia rates between Intracorporeal and Extracorporeal Anastomosis in Minimally Invasive Ileocolic Resection for Crohn's disease.. [DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2591968/v1]

Purpose: One-third of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) require multiple surgeries during their lifetime. So, reducing the incisional hernia rate is crucial. We aimed to define incisional hernia rates after minimally invasive ileocolic resection for CD, comparing intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision (ICA-P) versus extracorporeal anastomosis with midline vertical incision (ECA-M). Methods: This retrospective cohort compares ICA-P versus ECA-M from a prospectively maintained database of consecutive minimally invasive ileocolic resections for CD performed between 2014 and 2021 in a referral center. Results: Of the 249 patients included: 59 were in the ICA-P group, 190 in the ECA-M group. Both groups were similar according to baseline and preoperative characteristics. Overall, 22 (8.8%) patients developed an imaging-proven incisional hernia: seven at the port-site and 15 at the extraction-site. All 15 extraction-site incisional hernias were midline vertical incisions [7.9%; p=0.025], and 8 patients (53%) required surgical repair. Time-to-event analysis showed a 20% rate of extraction-site incisional hernia in the ECA-M group after 48 months (p =0.037). The length of stay was lower in the intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision group [ICA-P: 3.3±2.5 vs. ECA-M: 4.1±2.4 days; p=0.02] with similar 30-day postoperative complication [11(18.6) vs. 59(31.1); p=0.064] and readmission rates [7(11.9) vs. 18(9.5); p=0.59]. Conclusion: Patients in the ICA-P group did not encounter any incisional hernias while having shorter hospital length of stay and similar 30-day postoperative complications or readmission compared to ECA-M. Therefore, more consideration should be given to performing intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision during Ileocolic resection in patients with CD to reduce hernia risk.

The incidence of extraction site incisional hernia after minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Minimally invasive colorectal surgery reduces surgical trauma with better preservation of abdominal wall integrity, but the extraction site is still at risk of incisional hernia (IH). The aim of this study was to determine pooled incidence of IH for each type of extraction site and to compare rates of IH after midline, nonmidline and Pfannenstiel extraction.

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Single-armed and multiple-armed cohort studies and randomized controlled trials regarding minimally invasive colorectal surgery were searched from five databases. Outcomes were pooled and compared with random-effects, inverse-variance models. Risk of bias within the studies was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tool.

RESULTS

Thirty six studies were included, with a total 11,788 patients. The pooled extraction site IH rate was 16.0% for midline (n = 4081), 9.3% for umbilical (n = 2425), 5.2% for transverse (n = 3213), 9.4% for paramedian (n = 134) and 2.1% for Pfannenstiel (n = 1449). Nonmidline extraction (transverse and paramedian) showed significantly lower odds ratios (ORs) for IH when compared with midline extraction (including umbilical). Pfannenstiel extraction resulted in a significantly lower OR for IH compared with midline [OR 0.12 (0.50-0.30)], transverse [OR 0.25 (0.13-0.50)] and umbilical (OR 0.072 [0.033-0.16]) extraction sites. The risks of surgical site infection, seroma/haematoma or wound dehiscence were not significantly different in any of the analyses.

CONCLUSION

Pfannenstiel extraction is the preferred method in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. In cases where Pfannenstiel extraction is not possible, surgeons should avoid specimen extraction in the midline.

Choice of specimen's extraction site affects wound morbidity in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The choice for an ideal site of specimen extraction following laparoscopic colorectal surgery remains debatable. However, midline incision (MI) is usually employed for right and left-sided colonic resections while left iliac fossa or suprapubic transverse incision (STI) were reserved for sigmoid and rectal cancer resections.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) and incisional hernia (IH) in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer and specimen extraction via MI or STI.

METHOD

Prospectively collected data of elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections between January 2017 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. MI was employed for right and left-sided colonic resections while STI was used for sigmoid and rectal resections. SSI is defined according to the US CDC criteria. IH was diagnosed clinically and confirmed by CT scan at 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 168 patients underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal resections. MI was used in 90 patients while 78 patients had STI as an extraction site. Demographic and preoperative data is similar for two groups. The rate of IH was 13.3% for MI and 0% in the STI (p = 0.001). SSI was seen in 16.7% of MI vs 11.5% of STI (p = 0.34). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that the choice of extraction site is associated with statistically significant higher incisional hernia rate.

CONCLUSION

MI for specimen extraction is associated with higher incidence of both SSI and IH. The choice of incision for extraction site is an independent predicative factor for significantly higher IH and increased SSI rates.

An evidence map and synthesis review with meta-analysis on the risk of incisional hernia in colorectal surgery with standard closure

PURPOSE

To assess the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) across various type of incisions in colorectal surgery (CS) creating a map of evidence to define research trends, gaps and areas of future interest.

METHODS

Systematic review of PubMed and Scopus from 2010 onwards. Studies included both open (OS) and laparoscopic (LS). The primary outcome was incidence of IH 12 months after index procedure, secondary outcomes were the study features and their influence on reported proportion of IH. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportions. Meta-regression models were performed to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ninetyone studies were included reporting 6473 IH. The pooled proportions of IH for OS were 0.35 (95% CI 0.27-0.44) I² 0% in midline laparotomies and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.07), I² 52% for off-midline. In case of LS the pooled proportion of IH for midline extraction sites were 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.16), I² 58% and 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), I² 86% in case of off-midline. In Port-site IH was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.04), I² 82%, and for single incision surgery (SILS) of 0.06-95% CI 0.02-0.15, I² 81%. In case of stoma reversal sites was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.24).

CONCLUSION

Midline laparotomies and stoma reversal sites are at high risk for IH and should be considered in research of preventive strategies of closure. After laparoscopic approach IH happens mainly by extraction sites incisions specially midline and also represent an important area of analysis.

[Prophylaxis of parastomal, perineal and incisional hernias in colorectal surgery]

This article gives an overview of the relevant evidence from the literature on the topic of prophylactic use of meshes to prevent incisional and parastomal hernias in colorectal surgery. In addition, based on a structured literature search the incidence of hernias in colorectal surgery over the past 5 years was analyzed. A slight majority (54%) of articles recommended the use of prophylactic mesh implantation in colorectal surgery. The prophylactic use of meshes appears to reduce the risk of hernias in colorectal surgery but is associated with a slightly increased perioperative wound infection rate. Parastomal hernias are associated with higher incidence rates compared with incisional hernias and also appear to benefit more from prophylactic mesh implantation. The evidence in the literature is still unclear regarding the use of synthetic or biological implants due to the lack of randomized controlled trials. Perineal hernias were excluded from the analysis due to the incomparability of the mainly casuistic literature. An overview is given in the discussion. The analysis of the literature and also in reflection of our own experience comes to the conclusion that the disrupted integrity of the abdominal wall due to the operation should be prophylactically reinforced with a mesh after colorectal surgery. An evidence-based recommendation is not possible based on the current state of research on implantation techniques, e.g. onlay, sublay intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) and selection of the implant.

Natural orifice specimen extraction for colorectal surgery: Early adoption in a Western population

AIM

Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) challenges the limits of minimally invasive colorectal surgery by exploiting a natural opening for specimen delivery. Technically challenging, it is less painful, requires smaller wounds and abolishes the possibility of incisional hernia. These advantages of NOSE are seen in the obese (body mass index [BMI] >30 kg/m² ). This audit aims to demonstrate the feasibility of NOSE colectomy in an Australian population.

METHOD

Prospective data collected from 2007 to the present were retrospectively analysed. Only patients with mucosally benign colorectal conditions were included: complex diverticulosis, post-malignant polypectomy and volvulus. Left sided mucosal malignancies were excluded. Study end-points included postoperative length of stay, anastomotic leak rate and wound complications.

RESULTS

In total, 159 patients underwent NOSE, mean age 59 years (19-88), mean BMI 28.2 kg/m² (17-45). Ten (6.2%) patients developed retroperitoneal small bowel herniation; seven required further surgery. There were five (3.1%) anastomotic leaks, seven (4.4%) postoperative ileus and three (1.9%) anastomotic bleeds. One (0.6%) patient had a superficial wound infection. There were no port site hernias. Patients with BMI <30 kg/m² (98 patients) and BMI >30 kg/m² (59 patients) were compared; there was no difference in anastomotic leak rate (P = 0.60), complication rate (P = 0.71) and length of stay (P = 0.63). However, duration of operation increased with BMI (P = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

This large series of NOSE colectomy from Australia suggests that NOSE is comparable to conventional laparoscopic colectomy in terms of postoperative outcome. Given that obesity has not featured in the NOSE literature, our study suggests that NOSE, for benign disease, is safe in obese patients, without added morbidity.