Current practices in complex abdominal wall reconstruction in the Americas: need for national guidelines?

Abdominal wall surgery units accreditation. The Spanish model

The Spanish Association of Surgeons (AEC) deems it essential to define and regulate the acquisition of high-specialization competencies within General Surgery and Gastrointestinal Surgery and proposes the Regulation for the accreditation of specialized surgical units. The AEC aims to define specialized surgical units as those functional elements of the health system that meet the defined requirements regarding their provision, solvency, and specialization in care, teaching, and research. In this paper we present the proposed accreditation model for Abdominal Wall Surgery Units, as well as the results of a survey conducted to assess the status of such units in our country. The model presented represents one of the pioneering initiatives worldwide concerning the accreditation of Abdominal Wall Surgery Units.

Concomitant Panniculectomy in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A Narrative Review Focusing on Obese Patients

The global prevalence of obesity continues to rise, contributing to an increased frequency of abdominal wall reconstruction procedures, particularly ventral hernia repairs, in individuals with elevated body mass indexes. Undertaking these operations in obese patients poses inherent challenges. This review focuses on the current literature in this area, with special attention to the impact of concomitant panniculectomy. Obese individuals undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction face elevated rates of wound healing complications and hernia recurrence. The inclusion of concurrent panniculectomy heightens the risk of surgical site occurrences but does not significantly influence hernia recurrence rates. While this combined approach can be executed in obese patients, caution is warranted, due to the higher risk of complications. Physicians should carefully balance and communicate the potential risks, especially regarding the increased likelihood of wound healing complications. Acknowledging these factors is crucial in shared decision making and ensuring optimal patient outcomes in the context of abdominal wall reconstruction and related procedures in the obese population.

Application of Component Separation and Short-Term Outcomes in Ventral Hernia Repairs

INTRODUCTION

Component separation (CS) techniques have evolved in recent years. How surgeons apply the various CS techniques, anterior component separation (aCS) versus posterior component separation (pCS), by patient and hernia-specific factors remain unknown in the general population. Improving the quality of ventral hernia repair (VHR) on a large scale requires an understanding of current practice variations and how these variations ultimately affect patient care. In this study, we examine the application of CS techniques and the associated short-term outcomes while taking into consideration patient and hernia-specific factors.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a clinically rich statewide hernia registry, the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Hernia Registry, of persons older than 18 y who underwent VHR between January 2020 and July 2021. The exposure of interest was the use of CS. Our primary outcome was a composite end point of 30-d adverse events including any complication, emergency department visit, readmission, and reoperation. Our secondary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI). Multivariable logistic regression examined the association of CS use, 30-d adverse events, and SSI with patient-, hernia-, and operative-specific variables. We performed a sensitivity analysis evaluating for differences in application and outcomes of the posterior and aCS techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 1319 patients underwent VHR, with a median age (interquartile range) of 55 y (22), 641 (49%) female patients, and a median body mass index of 32 (9) kg/m². CS was used in 138 (11%) patients, of which 101 (73%) were pCS and 37 (27%) were aCS. Compared to patients without CS, patients undergoing a CS had larger median hernia widths (2.5 cm (range 0.01-23 cm) versus 8 cm (1-30 cm), P < 0.001). Of the CS cases, 49 (36%) performed in hernias less than 6 cm in size. Following multivariate regression, factors independently associated with the use of a CS were diabetes (odds ratio [OR]: 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-3.36), previous hernia repair (OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.20-2.96), hernia width (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.22-1.34), and an open approach (OR: 3.83, 95% CI: 2.24-6.53). Compared to patients not having a CS, use of a CS was associated with increased odds of 30-d adverse events (OR: 1.88 95% CI: 1.13-3.12) but was not associated with SSI (OR: 1.95, 95% CI: 0.74-4.63). Regression analysis demonstrated no differences in 30-d adverse events or SSI between the pCS and aCS techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first population-level report of patients undergoing VHR with concurrent posterior or aCS. These data suggest wide variation in the application of CS in VHR and raises a concern for potential overutilization in smaller hernias. Continued analysis of CS application and the associated outcomes, specifically recurrence, is necessary and underway.

Morphological alterations of the abdominal wall after open incisional hernia repair with endoscopic anterior and open posterior component separation

PURPOSE

Effects of component separation (CS) on abdominal wall morphology have only been investigated in smaller case series or cadavers. This study aimed to compare abdominal wall alterations following endoscopic anterior CS (EACS) or open transverse abdominis release (TAR).

METHODS

Computed tomography scans were evaluated in patients who had undergone open incisional hernia repair with EACS or TAR. Abdominal wall circumference, lateral abdominal wall muscle thickness, and displacement were compared with (1) preoperative images after bilateral CS and (2) the undivided side postoperatively after unilateral CS.

RESULTS

In total, 105 patients were included. Fifty-five (52%) and 15 (14%) underwent bilateral and unilateral EACS, respectively. Five (5%) and 14 (13%) underwent bilateral and unilateral TAR, respectively. Sixteen (15%) underwent unilateral EACS and contralateral TAR. The external oblique and transverse abdominis muscles were significantly laterally displaced with a mean of 2.74 cm (95% CI 2.29-3.19 cm, P < 0.001) and 0.82 cm (0.07-1.57 cm, P = 0.032) after EACS and TAR, respectively. The combined thickness of the lateral muscles was significantly decreased after EACS (mean decrease 10.5% (5.8-15.6%, P < 0.001)) and insignificantly decreased after TAR (mean decrease 2.6% (- 4.8 to 9.5%, P = 0.50)). The abdominal wall circumference was unchanged after bilateral (mean reduction 0.90 cm (- 0.77 to 2.58 cm), P = 0.29) and unilateral CS (mean increase 0.03 cm (- 1.01 to 1.08 cm), P = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative changes in the lateral abdominal wall musculature were different following EACS and open TAR. Either technique seems not to compromise the overall integrity of the lateral abdominal wall.