Abdominal Closure and the Risk of Incisional Hernia in Aneurysm Surgery - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Comparison of Maylard and Cherney incisions' outcomes in hysterectomy surgery for benign indications: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Choosing the incision for surgery depends on a variety of factors, including the surgeon's preference, patient preference, surgical indications, the patient's systemic issues, previous surgical scars, and other considerations. This trial aimed to evaluate and compare the surgical outcomes of two techniques-Maylard and Cherney incisions-in benign hysterectomy procedures for women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in Al-Zahra Women's Tertiary Referral University Hospital. A total of 60 patients undergoing benign hysterectomy were randomly allocated to two groups, with one group undergoing surgery with a Maylard incision and the other with a Cherney incision. Surgeries in both groups were performed by a gynecologist oncologist who was a member of the university faculty, accompanied by an Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in hemoglobin levels or clinical or obstetric characteristics before surgery between the two study groups (p > 0.05). The mean time from skin incision to entering the abdominal cavity was 14.23 min for Maylard and 13.6 min for Cherney (p = 0.091). The average blood loss was 506.6 mL in the Maylard group and 429.3 mL in the Cherney group, which was statistically significant (p = 0.031). Postoperative hemoglobin levels were 11.68 g/dL in the Maylard group and 12.07 g/dL in the Cherney group (p = 0.133). Pain scores were higher in the Cherney group than in the Maylard group (p = 0.041). There were no surgical complications after 1 and 3 months in the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No complications were observed in any of the patients following the surgery. The Mylard incision showed a higher level of bleeding in comparison with the Cherney incision, which was linked to more noticeable pain. Nevertheless, both incisions are deemed as effective options for gynecological surgeries, offering superb visibility to the pelvis.

Risk factors for incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of incisional hernia (IH) after an open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair can reach up to 35%, contributing to long-term morbidity. Individual studies have been limited in identifying modifiable risk factors for IH after an open AAA repair. This meta-analysis aims to review all the risk factors for IH after an open AAA repair.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central, Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases for original studies. Risk factors assessed were age, sex, comorbidities, surgical incision, blood loss, and surgical site infection (SSI). Data analysis was done using RStudio 4.1.2. We computed Relative Risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and Mean differences (MD) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for continuous outcomes. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria among 1,795 screened articles. Among those ten studies, there were a total of 1,806 patients of which 341 patients developed IH. Older age (Mean 69.6-70.7 years, MD 1.39 years, CI [1.12-1.66], P < 0.01), midline vertical incision (RR 1.55, CI [1.06-2.25], P = 0.02) and increased intraoperative blood loss (MD 429.8 ml, CI [234.8- 624.8], P < 0.01) were associated with an increased incidence of IH. Surgical site infection (SSI) was noted as a risk factor for IH after open AAA repair (RR 2.36, CI [1.31-4.24], P = 0.004). No statistically significant association was found between the incidence of IH and sex (RR 1.0, CI [0.8-1.14], P = 0.98), smoking (RR 1.01, CI [0.93-1.09], P = 0.88), diabetes (RR 1.38, CI [0.85-2.25], P = 0.19), and chronic kidney disease (RR 1.55, CI [0.47-5.09], P = 0.46).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that age, midline vertical incision, intraoperative blood loss, and SSI are risk factors for IH after open AAA repair.

Long-Term Propensity-Matched Comparison of Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair and Open Surgical Repair of Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE

This study investigated the long-term outcomes of patients treated with fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F-BEVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR) for complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (c-AAAs). Complex abdominal aortic aneurysms are defined as aneurysms that involve the renal or mesenteric arteries and extend up to the level of the celiac axis or diaphragmatic hiatus but do not extend into the thoracic aorta. This study compares with a propensity-score matching the outcome of these procedures from 2 high-volume aortic centers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients with c-AAAs undergoing repair at 2 centers between January 2010 and June 2016 were included. The long-term imaging follow-up consisted in a yearly computed tomography angiography (CTA) in the F-BEVAR group. Yearly abdominal ultrasound examination and 5-year CTA were performed in the OSR group. The primary endpoints were long-term mortality, aneurysm-related mortality, and chronic renal decline (CRD), defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or >20%/de novo dependence on permanent dialysis in patients with normal or abnormal preoperative renal function, respectively. Secondary endpoints included aortic-related reinterventions, target vessel occlusion, proximal aorta degeneration, access-related complications, graft infection, and the composite endpoint of clinical failure during follow-up.

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity matching, 102 consecutive patients who underwent F-BEVAR and OSR, respectively, were included. The median follow-up was 67 months. There was no significant difference in long-term overall mortality (40.2% vs 36.3%; p=0.40) and aneurysm-related mortality (6.8% vs 5.8%; p=0.30), in the F-BEVAR and OSR groups, respectively. During follow-up, late renal function decline occurred in 27 (27.8%) versus 46 patients (47.4%) in the F-BEVAR and OSR groups, respectively (p<0.01). During follow-up, 23 reinterventions (23.5%) were performed in the F-BEVAR group, and 5 (5.1%) in the OSR group (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in overall and aneurysm-related mortality were observed. Chronic renal decline was significantly higher after OSR, while the reintervention rate was higher in the F-BEVAR group. These long-term results reflect the outcomes of a complex procedure performed by a single experienced operator in 2 high-volume centers, and followed with a strict surveillance imaging follow-up.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Nowadays, F-BEVAR and OSR are considered two established techniques for the treatment of c-AAA. However, long-term comparative outcomes are not well studied, and concerns may rise in terms of durability of the repair, risk of reinterventions and late chronic renal decline. The present study showed, with a median follow-up > 5 years, no differences in overall and aneurysm-related mortality. Chronic renal decline was significantly higher after OSR, while the reintervention rate was higher in the endovascular group. To achieve the best possible long-term outcomes, both techniques should be performed in high volume aortic centres, tailored to the patient, and with an adequate surveillance imaging.

Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement Versus Primary Suture for Abdominal Wall Closure after Elective Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Midline Laparotomy Incision: Updated Systematic Review Including Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair have a high risk of incisional hernia. Heterogeneity in recommendations regarding prophylactic mesh reinforcement between scientific society guidelines reflects the lack of sufficient data, with the Society for Vascular Surgery making no recommendation on methods for abdominal wall closure. We aimed to synthesize the most current evidence on mesh versus primary suture abdominal wall closure after open AAA repair.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mesh reinforcement with primary abdominal wall closure for patients who underwent elective AAA repair with a midline laparotomy incision. Dichotomous and time-to-event data were pooled using random effects models, applying the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method. The revised Cochrane tool and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence, respectively. Trial sequential analysis assumed alpha = 5% and power = 80%.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included reporting a total of 487 patients (260 in the mesh group and 227 in the primary suture group). Patients who had mesh closure had statistically significantly lower odds of developing incisional hernia after open AAA repair than those with primary suture closure (odds ratio (OR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09-0.43). Time-to-event analysis confirmed that the hazard of incisional hernia was statistically significantly lower in patients who had mesh closure (P < 0.05). Meta-analysis found statistically significantly lower odds of reoperation for incisional hernia in the mesh group (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06-0.93), but there was no statistically significant difference in wound infection (risk difference 0.02, 95% CI -0.03-0.08). The overall risk of bias was low in one study, high in 2 studies, "some concerns" in 2 studies for incisional hernia and reoperation for incisional hernia, and high in all studies reporting wound infection. The certainty of evidence was judged to be low for all outcomes. Trial sequential analysis confirmed a benefit of mesh reinforcement in reducing the risk of incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of the highest-level data demonstrated a benefit of prophylactic mesh reinforcement, with trial sequential analysis confirming no additional RCTs required. This provides compelling evidence to support the use of mesh for midline laparotomy closure in patients undergoing open AAA repair.

Risk Factors for Development of Incisional Hernia after Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Secondary Analysis of the OVER Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Since the risk of mortality from rupture is elevated, elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is often recommended. Currently, over 80% of elective repairs are carried out using an endovascular approach. While open repair has similar late survival and fewer reintervention outcomes when compared to endovascular repair, incisional hernia is a frequent complication with morbidity and cost implications. The Open versus Endovascular Repair (OVER) trial was the largest randomized trial of endovascular versus open repair of AAA in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine risk factors associated with incisional hernia development following AAA repair via secondary analysis of the OVER data.

METHODS

This was a multisite trial conducted within the Veterans Affairs health-care system. Study participants (N = 881) were enrolled from 2002 to 2008 and followed until 2011 with additional administrative data collection until 2016. Eligible patients had AAA for which elective repair was planned and randomized 1:1 to either open or endovascular repair. Incisional hernia was a prespecified end point in the OVER protocol, specifically assessed at each protocol follow-up visit. Technical details were extracted from each operative report, repair case report form(s), and adverse event form(s). Patient demographics, comorbid conditions, reported preoperative activity level, and operative details including initial approach, blood loss, and closure methods were analyzed using Bayesian hierarchical Weibull survival regression modeling.

RESULTS

Incisional hernias were recorded among 46 participants (5.2%). The average time to hernia diagnosis was 3.5 years. Of the 437 participants randomized to open treatment, 427 received an open repair including crossovers from endovascular treatment assignment. Transperitoneal repair was performed in 81%, running suture in 96%, and absorbable suture in 71% of cases. Randomization to endovascular repair was associated with reduced risk of hernia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% credible interval [CI] 0.49-0.94). Higher activity level was associated with increased hernia risk (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06-1.84). Approach, suture closure techniques, body mass index, diabetes, and smoking status were not associated with increased risk of hernia development.

CONCLUSIONS

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication associated with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm and commonly required reintervention. Endovascular repair was associated with reduced risk of hernia. Patients with increased activity experienced a higher incidence of hernia. However, no other modifiable patient, operative, or technical factors were found to be associated with hernia development.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Wound healing and hernia after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: Onlay self-gripping polyester mesh reinforcement compared with small bite sutured closure

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic mesh implantation following open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm is a debatable subject.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of a self-gripping polyester mesh used in on-lay technique to prevent incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 495 patients who underwent aortic surgery between May 2017 and May 2021. Patients included in the study underwent open surgical repair for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with closure of the abdominal wall with either small bite suture technique or prophylactic mesh reinforcement. Primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of incisional hernia during a two-year follow-up period. Secondary endpoints were mesh-related complications.

RESULTS

Mesh implantation with the on-lay technique was successful in all cases. No patient in the mesh group developed an incisional hernia during the 24-month follow-up period. Two patients in the non-mesh group developed a symptomatic incisional hernia during the follow-up period at 6 months. Three cases of post-operative access site complications were observed in the mesh group.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of a self-gripping polyester mesh using the on-lay technique demonstrates acceptable early-durability after open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. However, it appears to be associated with a number of post-operative access site complications.

ECLAPTE: Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency-2023 World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines for the closure of laparotomy in emergency settings

Laparotomy incisions provide easy and rapid access to the peritoneal cavity in case of emergency surgery. Incisional hernia (IH) is a late manifestation of the failure of abdominal wall closure and represents frequent complication of any abdominal incision: IHs can cause pain and discomfort to the patients but also clinical serious sequelae like bowel obstruction, incarceration, strangulation, and necessity of reoperation. Previous guidelines and indications in the literature consider elective settings and evidence about laparotomy closure in emergency settings is lacking. This paper aims to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) project called ECLAPTE (Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency): the final manuscript includes guidelines on the closure of emergency laparotomy.

Incisional Hernias after Vascular Surgery for Aortoiliac Aneurysm and Aortoiliac Occlusive Arterial Disease: Has Prophylactic Mesh Changed This Scenario?

BACKGROUND

 Incisional hernia (IH) is an important surgical complication that has several ways of prevention, including modifications in the surgical technique of the initial procedure. Its incidence can reach 69% in high-risk patients and long-term follow-up. Of the risky procedures, open abdominal aortic aneurysmectomy is the one with the highest risk. Ways to reduce this morbid complication were suggested, and prophylactic mesh rises as an important tool to prevent recurrence.

METHODS

 A retrospective cohort study review of medical records of patients undergoing vascular surgery for abdominal aortoiliac aneurysm (AAA) or vascular bypass surgery due to aortoiliac occlusive disease. We identified 193 patients treated between 2010 and 2020. We further performed a one-to-nine matching analysis between the use of prophylactic mesh and control groups, based on estimated propensity scores for each patient.

RESULTS

 Prophylactic mesh group had a 18% lower risk of IH, compared with the control group (relative risk: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74-0.93). The difference in IH rates between the groups compared was 2.6% (95% CI: -19.8 to 25.5). From the perspective of the number needed to treat, it would be necessary to use prophylactic mesh in 39 (95% CI: 35-44) patients to avoid one IH in this population.

CONCLUSION

 Use of prophylactic mesh in the repair of AAA significantly reduces the incidence of IH in nearly one in five cases. Our data suggest that there is benefit in the use of prophylactic mesh in open aneurysmectomy surgery regarding postoperative IH development.

The effect of prophylactic mesh implantation on the development of incisional hernias in patients with elevated BMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a common complication after midline laparotomy. In certain risk profiles incidences can reach up to 70%. Large RCTs showed a positive effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) in high-risk populations.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to evaluate the effect of prophylactic mesh reinforcement on incisional hernia reduction in obese patients after midline laparotomies.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search in Medline, Web of Science and CENTRAL was conducted. RCTs investigating PMR in patients with a BMI ≥ 27 reporting incisional hernia as primary outcome were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence was rated according to the GRADE Working Group grading of evidence. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Out of 2298 articles found by a systematic literature search, five RCTs with 1136 patients were included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of incisional hernia when comparing PMR with primary suture (odds ratio (OR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.34-1.01, p = 0.06, GRADE: low). Meta-analyses of seroma formation (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.72-3.65; p = 0.24, GRADE: low) and surgical site infections (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.72-3.22, p = 0.28, GRADE: moderate) showed no significant differences as well as subgroup analyses for BMI ≥ 40 and length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not observe a significant reduction of the incidence of incisional hernia with prophylactic mesh reinforcement used in patients with elevated BMI. These results stand in contrast to the current recommendation for hernia prevention in obese patients.

Incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

INTRODUCTION

Incisional hernia (IH) is common after open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Recent studies reported incidence rates higher than previously stated. The aim of this study was to quantify the IH incidence after open AAA surgery. The secondary outcome was to identify the risk factors associated with the development of an IH.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study of all consecutive patients who underwent an open repair of AAA, from January 2010 to June 2018, at our institution. Patients were free of abdominal wall hernias at the moment of inclusion in the study. Data were extracted from electronic records: baseline characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative events. Computed tomography (CT) scans performed during follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were analysed. The IH incidence after open repair of AAA was 46.5% (73 patients). The median time for IH development was 24.43 months (IQR: 10.40-45.27), while the median follow-up time was 37.20 months (IQR: 20.53-64.12). The risk factors linked to IH were: active (HR: 4.535; 95% CI: 1.369-15.022) or previous smoking habit (HR: 4.652; 95% CI: 1.430-15.131), chronic kidney disease (HR: 2.007; 95% CI: 1.162-3.467) and previous abdominal surgery (HR: 1.653; 95% CI: 1.014-2.695).

CONCLUSION

The incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair affected a high proportion of the intervened patients. Previous abdominal surgery, chronic kidney disease, and smoking habit were independent factors for the development of an incisional hernia.

Prevention of Incisional Hernias by Prophylactic Mesh-augmented Reinforcement of Midline Laparotomies for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treatment: Five-year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of incisional hernias (IHs) after open repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is high. Several randomized controlled trials have reported favorable results with the use of prophylactic mesh to prevent IHs, without increasing complications. In this analysis, we report on the results of the 60-month follow-up of the PRIMAAT trial.

METHODS

In a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized design, patients were randomized between prophylactic retrorectus mesh reinforcement (mesh group), and primary closure of their midline laparotomy after open AAA repair (no-mesh group). This article reports on the results of clinical follow-up after 60 months. If performed, ultrasonography or computed tomography were used for the diagnosis of IHs.

RESULTS

Of the 120 randomized patients, 114 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Thirty-three patients in the no-mesh group (33/58-56.9%) and 34 patients in the mesh group (34/56-60.7%) were evaluated after 5 years. In each treatment arm, 10 patients died between the 24-month and 60-month follow-up. The cumulative incidence of IHs in the no-mesh group was 32.9% after 24 months and 49.2% after 60 months. No IHs were diagnosed in the mesh group. In the no-mesh group, 21.7% (5/23) underwent reoperation within 5 years due to an IH.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic retrorectus mesh reinforcement after midline laparotomy for the treatment of AAAs safely and effectively decreases the rate of IHs. The cumulative incidence of IHs after open AAA repair, when no mesh is used, continues to increase during the first 5 years after surgery, which leads to a substantial rate of hernia repairs.

Guidelines on the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms: updates from the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (SICVE)

The objective of these Guidelines was to revise and update the previous 2016 Italian Guidelines on Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Disease, in accordance with the National Guidelines System (SNLG), to guide every practitioner toward the most correct management pathway for this pathology. The methodology applied in this update was the GRADE-SIGN version methodology, following the instructions of the AGREE quality of reporting checklist as well. The first methodological step was the formulation of clinical questions structured according to the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) model according to which the Recommendations were issued. Then, systematic reviews of the Literature were carried out for each PICO question or for homogeneous groups of questions, followed by the selection of the articles and the assessment of the methodological quality for each of them using qualitative checklists. Finally, a Considered Judgment form was filled in for each clinical question, in which the features of the evidence as a whole are assessed to establish the transition from the level of evidence to the direction and strength of the recommendations. These guidelines outline the correct management of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm in terms of screening and surveillance. Medical management and indication for surgery are discussed, as well as preoperative assessment regarding patients' background and surgical risk evaluation. Once the indication for surgery has been established, the options for traditional open and endovascular surgery are described and compared, focusing specifically on patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms as well. Finally, indications for early and late postoperative follow-up are explained. The most recent evidence in the Literature has been able to confirm and possibly modify the previous recommendations updating them, likewise to propose new recommendations on prospectively relevant topics.

RISK FACTORS OF LONG-TERM INCISIONAL HERNIA AFTER OPEN SURGERY FOR ABDOMINAL AORTIC ANEURYSM: A BICENTRIC STUDY

INTRODUCTION

Conventional open surgery is still important beside endovascular surgery in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms, with less reinterventions in the long-term follow-up. Incisional hernias are the major complication open surgery in the mid- and long term. The occurrence of this late complication could be due to the choice of the incision, median or transverse. The objectives of our retrospective and bicentric study were to characterize the long-term risk factors for incisional hernias after open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms, in particular by comparing the two types of laparotomy, and to determine the prevalence of the operated and not operated incisional hernias.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2009 and December 2011, all the patients having elective open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) by midline laparotomy at the University hospital of Besancon or by transversal laparotomy at the University Hospital of Strasbourg were included retrospectively. The demographic data, the time of diagnosis of the incisional hernia and the parietal reinterventions were collected during a 5-year postoperative follow-up. A univariate and multivariate Cox model was used for the statistical analysis to determine the long-term risk factors for the appearance of an incisional hernia.

RESULTS

During the study period, 223 patients presenting with AAA were included, 112 of them were operated by a midline laparotomy and 111 by a transverse laparotomy. The mean age of the patients was 69 ± 8,4years and 208 (93.3%) were men. The 5-year prevalence of incisional hernias was 14.3% (32), and 20 of these hernias (9%) had to be operated. Eighteen hernias (16.1%) occurred after a midline laparotomy and 14 (12.6%) after a transverse incision (P = 0.30). In univariate analysis, obstructive chronic pulmonary disease was the only significant risk factor for incisional hernia (P = 0.01) and an age over 65 years appeared to protect against this risk (P = 0.049). These results were confirmed by multivariate analysis, which showed that obstructive chronic pulmonary disease was an independent risk factor for incisional hernia (HR = 2.35, 95% CI 1.16-4.75), and that an age over 65 years was a protective factor (HR = 0.49 95% IC 0.00-0.99).

CONCLUSION

The type of laparotomy did not modify the rate of incisional hernias. We showed that only 9% of the patients had to be operated to treat an incisional hernia during the first five years after surgery for AAA in our bicentric study. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was the only independent risk factor for the occurrence of an incisional hernia.

AAA Revisited: A Comprehensive Review of Risk Factors, Management, and Hallmarks of Pathogenesis

Despite declining incidence and mortality rates in many countries, the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) continues to represent a life-threatening cardiovascular condition with an overall prevalence of about 2-3% in the industrialized world. While the risk of AAA development is considerably higher for men of advanced age with a history of smoking, screening programs serve to detect the often asymptomatic condition and prevent aortic rupture with an associated death rate of up to 80%. This review summarizes the current knowledge on identified risk factors, the multifactorial process of pathogenesis, as well as the latest advances in medical treatment and surgical repair to provide a perspective for AAA management.

Five-year survival after elective open and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Current evidence suggests short-term survival benefit from endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) procedures, but this benefit is lost during long-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to compare short- and mid-term all-cause mortality in patients with non-ruptured aneurysm treated by OSR and EVAR; and to assess the rate of complications and reinterventions, as well as to evaluate their impact on survival.

METHODS

The medical records of the non-ruptured AAA patients undergoing OSR or EVAR between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2019 at Tartu University Hospital, Estonia, were retrospectively reviewed. We gathered survival data from the national registry (mean follow-up period was 3.7 ± 2.3 years).

RESULTS

A total of 225 non-ruptured AAA patients were treated operatively out of whom 95 (42.2%) were EVAR and 130 (57.8%) were OSR procedures. The difference in estimated all-cause mortality between the OSR and EVAR groups at day 30 was statistically irrelevant (2.3% vs 0%; p = 0.140), but OSR patients showed statistically significantly higher 5 year survival compared with EVAR patients (75.3% vs 50.0%, p = 0.002). Complication and reintervention rates for the EVAR and OSR groups did not differ statistically (26.3% vs 16.9%, p = 0.122; 10.5% vs 11.5%, p = 0.981, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that greater aneurysm diameter (p = 0.012), EVAR procedure (p = 0.016), male gender (p = 0.023), and cerebrovascular diseases (p = 0.028) were independently positively associated with 5-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Thirty-day mortality, and complication and reintervention rates for EVAR and OSR after elective AAA repair were similar. Although the EVAR procedure is an independent risk factor for 5-year mortality, higher age and greater proportion of comorbidities among EVAR patients may influence not only the choice of treatment modality, but also prognosis.

[Debate on Infrarenal AAA in Young and Fit Patients ('Fit for Open Repair'): Open Repair is Safe and Long-term Results are Better]

Endovascular aortic repair, initially developed for patients at prohibitively high risk for an open repair, has undergone significant technical evolution and refinement and has emerged as the preferred treatment option for patients with an infrarenal aortic aneurysm. However, analysis of long-term data of the randomised studies revealed inferior results with regards to survival and freedom-from-reintervention after eight years. Open aortic repair has been performed for more than seven decades and especially for the younger patients with few comorbidities, results are excellent. Potential drawbacks of open repair like incisional hernias, erectile dysfunction and quality of life can either be effectively prevented (mesh reinforcement) or actually failed to show a significant difference compared to open repair in recent studies. Therefore, meticulous assessment of patient comorbidites using validated parameters is the key element for decision-making and parameters such as young age, low comorbidity profile, large aneurysm and presence of atopic renal arteries or a dominant inferior mesenteric artery should prompt a recommendation of open repair.

Incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia after abdominal aortic aneurysm and aortic occlusive disease surgery

Background

This study aims to investigate incisional hernia incidence and risk factors after abdominal aortic aneurysm and aortic occlusive disease surgery via a midline laparotomy.

Methods

A total of 110 patients (66 males, 44 females; mean age: 69.3±8.8 years; range, 36 to 88 years) who underwent open elective surgery for aortoiliac occlusive diseases or abdominal aortic aneurysm between January 2005 and December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Both patient groups were compared in terms of surgical procedures, sex, age, American Society o f A nesthesiologists s core ( 1-3), b ody m ass i ndex (<25 vs. ≥25 kg/m²), smoking (non-smoker <1 pack/day, smoking ≥1 pack/day), and time to incisional hernia development.

Results

Incisional hernia occurred in 14.3% of the patients operated for aortoiliac occlusive disease and in 17.6% of the patients operated for abdominal aortic aneurysm (p=0.643). Incisional hernia was seen in three (5.7%) of 53 patients with a body mass index of <25 kg/m² and was in 15 (26.3%) of 57 patients with a body mass index of ≥25 kg/m² (p=0.03).

Conclusion

High body mass index is a risk factor for incisional hernia in patients undergoing aortic reconstructive surgery.

Incidence and risk factors for incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

INTRODUCTION

Incisional hernia (IH) is common after open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Recent studies reported incidence rates higher than previously stated. The aim of this study was to quantify the IH incidence after open AAA surgery. The secondary outcome was to identify the risk factors associated with the development of an IH.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study of all consecutive patients who underwent an open repair of AAA, from January 2010 to June 2018, at our institution. Patients were free of abdominal wall hernias at the moment of inclusion in the study. Data were extracted from electronic records: baseline characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative events. Computed tomography (CT) scans performed during follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were analysed. The IH incidence after open repair of AAA was 46.5% (73 patients). The median time for IH development was 24.43 months (IQR: 10.40-45.27), while the median follow-up time was 37.20 months (IQR: 20.53-64.12). The risk factors linked to IH were: active (HR: 4.535; 95% CI: 1.369-15.022) or previous smoking habit (HR: 4.652; 95% CI: 1.430-15.131), chronic kidney disease (HR: 2.007; 95% CI: 1.162-3.467) and previous abdominal surgery (HR: 1.653; 95% CI: 1.014-2.695).

CONCLUSION

The incisional hernia after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair affected a high proportion of the intervened patients. Previous abdominal surgery, chronic kidney disease, and smoking habit were independent factors for the development of an incisional hernia.

Preventing incisional ventral hernias: important for patients but ignored by surgical specialities? A critical review

PURPOSE

Incisional ventral hernias (IHs) are a common complication across all surgical specialities requiring access to the abdomen, pelvis, and retroperitoneum. This public health issue continues to be widely ignored, resulting in appreciable morbidity and expenses. In this critical review, the issue is explored by an interdisciplinary group.

METHODS

A group of European surgeons encompassing representatives from abdominal wall, vascular, urological, gynecological, colorectal and hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgery have reviewed the occurrence of His in these disciplines.

RESULTS

Incisional hernias are a major public health issue with appreciable morbidity and cost implications. General surgeons are commonly called upon to repair IHs following an initial operation by others. Measures that may collectively reduce the frequency of IH across specialities include better planning and preparation (e.g. a fit patient, no time pressure, an experienced operator). A minimally invasive technique should be employed where appropriate. Our main recommendations in midline incisions include using the 'small bites' suture technique with a ≥ 4:1 suture-to-wound length, and adding prophylactic mesh augmentation in patients more likely to suffer herniation. For off-midline incisions, more research of this problem is essential.

CONCLUSION

Meticulous closure of the incision is significant for every patient. Raising awareness of the His is necessary in all surgical disciplines that work withing the abdomen or retroperitoneum. Across all specialties, surgeons should aim for a < 10% IH rate.