A randomized comparison of continuous versus interrupted mass closure of midline incisions in patients with gynecologic cancer

Incisional Hernia in Cytoreductive Surgery for Advanced-Stage Ovarian Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

An incisional hernia (IH) is a frequent postoperative complication after cytoreductive laparotomic surgery for advanced ovarian cancer (AOC). It occurs in 2-22% of patients in the first two years of follow-up, depending on the series. Although different risk factors have been described for various types of malignancies and surgeries, few studies have analyzed the risk factors for hernia development in ovarian cancer (OC). However, none have examined the role of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study that included patients with AOC and primary or interval debulking surgery through a median laparotomic approach. This study was conducted in Vall d'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain, between January 2015 and December 2022. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 156 patients included, 30 (19.2%) presented with an IH. The patients with IHs were smokers in a higher proportion to non-smokers (53.9% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.003) and more frequently presented with wound dehiscence (34.4% vs. 15.0%, p = 0.026). Patients in whom negative pressure wound therapy was applied had a hernia less frequently than those who had not had it (12.5% vs. 26.7%, p = 0.043). Similarly, the incidence of hernia decreased when patients went through an ERAS protocol (10.1% vs. 28.8%, p = 0.008). In the multivariate analysis, smoking was the only independent risk factor (RR 10.84, CI 2.76-42.64), and applying an ERAS protocol was seen to be the sole protective factor (RR 0.22, CI 0.08-0.61) against the development of an IH.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of ERAS is highly recommended due to its numerous benefits, most notably the reduction in hernia incidence. Additionally, the preoperative identification of current smokers provides an opportunity for smoking cessation and targeted respiratory prehabilitation, both of which further contribute to IH reduction.

Small bite fascial closure technique reduces incisional hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients

BACKGROUND

The potential for the technique of small bite fascial closure in mitigating incisional hernias in gynecologic oncology patients still needs to be investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of closure of small fascial bites compared with prior standard closure on incisional hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study comparing patient outcomes before and after the intervention at a single institution at a comprehensive cancer center. Patients who underwent laparotomy with a vertical midline incision for a suspected or known gynecologic malignancy with a 1-year follow-up were included. The pre-intervention cohort (large bites) had 'mass' or modified running Smead-Jones closure. In contrast, the post-intervention cohort had fascial bites taken 5-8 mm laterally with no more than 5 mm travel (small bites) closure using a 2-0 polydioxanone suture.The primary outcome was the incisional hernias rate determined by imaging or clinical examination within the first year of follow-up. Patient factors and peri-operative variates of interest were investigated for their association with hernia formation through univariate and multivariate analyses. These included age, body mass index (BMI), smoking history, estimated blood loss, pre-operative albumin, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) physical status classification, or treatment with chemotherapy post-operatively.

RESULTS

Of the 255 patients included, the total hernia rate was 12.5% (32/255 patients). Patient characteristics were similar in both cohorts. Small bite closure led to a significant reduction in hernia rates from 17.2% (22/128 patients) to 7.9% (10/127 patients), p=0.025. According to logistic regression modeling, small bite closure (OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.94, p=0.036) was independently associated with lower odds of hernia formation. Other factors associated with increased hernia rates were chemotherapy (OR=3.22, 95% CI 1.22 to 8.51, p=0.019) and obesity (OR=23.4, 95% CI 3.09 to 177, p=0.002). In obese patients, small bite closures led to maximal hernia rate reduction compared with large bites.

CONCLUSIONS

The small bite closure technique effectively reduces hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing midline laparotomy.

Left iliac fossa mini-incision sigmoidectomy for treatment of sigmoid volvulus. Case series of six patients from Qatar

BACKGROUND

Midline laparotomy is the definitive treatment for sigmoid volvulus after initial colonoscopic detorsion. We successfully adopted another technique at our center on 6 patients, treating sigmoid volvulus by left iliac fossa mini-incision.

PRESENTATION OF CASES

We report our experience of six non-consecutive cases of sigmoid volvulus treated by left iliac fossa mini-incision. The cases were a 33 year old Egyptian female, a 21 year old Bangladeshi male, a 58 year old Qatari male, a 30 year old Ethiopian male, a 36 year old Ugandan male, and a 58 year old Indian male. The six cases are unique in the surgical technique employed in their management. This is possibly the second case series of left iliac fossa mini-incision for sigmoid volvulus in the Middle East and North Africa Region.

DISCUSSION

All patients underwent initial colonoscopic detorsion followed by sigmoidectomy and anastomosis. The procedure was successful in treating the volvulus in five patients with no complication or recurrence over a mean follow up of 8 months (range: 1-36 months). One patient required further laparotomy and resection with anastomosis due to incompletely removed sigmoid colon.

CONCLUSIONS

Left iliac fossa mini-incision for sigmoid volvulus is safe, feasible, cosmetically appealing and with low morbidity.

Hernia reduction following laparotomy using small stitch abdominal wall closure with and without mesh augmentation (the HULC trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Incisional hernias are among the most frequent complications following abdominal surgery and cause substantial morbidity, impaired health-related quality of life and costs. Despite improvements in abdominal wall closure techniques, the risk for developing an incisional hernia is reported to be between 10 and 30% following midline laparotomies. There have been two recent innovations with promising results to reduce hernia risks, namely the small stitches technique and the placement of a prophylactic mesh. So far, these two techniques have not been evaluated in combination.

Methods

The HULC trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled, observer- and patient-blinded surgical effectiveness trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 812 patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery via a midline laparotomy will be randomized in 12 centres after informed consent. Patients will be randomly assigned to the control group receiving closure of the midline incision with a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in the small stitches technique or to the intervention group, who will receive a small stitches closure followed by augmentation with a light-weight polypropylene mesh in the onlay technique. The primary endpoint will be the occurrence of incisional hernias, as defined by the European Hernia Society, within 24 months after surgery. Further perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes.

Discussion

The HULC trial will address the yet unanswered question of whether a combination of small stitched fascial closure and onlay mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomies reduces the risk of incisional hernias. The HULC trial marks the logical and innovative next step in the development of a safe abdominal closure technique.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00017517. Registered on 24th June 2019.

Meta-analysis on Materials and Techniques for Laparotomy Closure: The MATCH Review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate closure materials and suture techniques for emergency and elective laparotomies. The primary outcome was incisional hernia after 12 months, and the secondary outcomes were burst abdomen and surgical site infection.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted until September 2017. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated by at least 3 assessors using critical appraisal checklists. Meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 23 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. There was no evidence from RCTs using the same suture technique in both study arms that any suture material (fast-absorbable/slowly absorbable/non-absorbable) is superior in reducing incisional hernias. There is no evidence that continuous suturing is superior in reducing incisional hernias compared to interrupted suturing. When using a slowly absorbable suture for continuous suturing in elective midline closure, the small bites technique results in significantly less incisional hernias than a large bites technique (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19, 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence available concerning the best suture material or technique to reduce incisional hernia rate when closing a laparotomy. When using a slowly absorbable suture and a continuous suturing technique with small tissue bites, the incisional hernia rate is significantly reduced compared with a large bites technique.

Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications

BACKGROUND

Surgeons who perform laparotomy have a number of decisions to make regarding abdominal closure. Material and size of potential suture types varies widely. In addition, surgeons can choose to close the incision in anatomic layers or mass ('en masse'), as well as using either a continuous or interrupted suturing technique, of which there are different styles of each. There is ongoing debate as to which suturing techniques and suture materials are best for achieving definitive wound closure while minimising the risk of short- and long-term complications.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to identify the best available suture techniques and suture materials for closure of the fascia following laparotomy incisions, by assessing the following comparisons: absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures; mass versus layered closure; continuous versus interrupted closure techniques; monofilament versus multifilament sutures; and slow absorbable versus fast absorbable sutures. Our objective was not to determine the single best combination of suture material and techniques, but to compare the individual components of abdominal closure.

SEARCH METHODS

On 8 February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two trials registries, and Science Citation Index. There were no limitations based on language or date of publication. We searched the reference lists of all included studies to identify trials that our searches may have missed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared suture materials or closure techniques, or both, for fascial closure of laparotomy incisions. We excluded trials that compared only types of skin closures, peritoneal closures or use of retention sutures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each trial. We calculated a summary risk ratio (RR) for the outcomes assessed in the review, all of which were dichotomous. We used random-effects modelling, based on the heterogeneity seen throughout the studies and analyses. We completed subgroup analysis planned a priori for each outcome, excluding studies where interventions being compared differed by more than one component, making it impossible to determine which variable impacted on the outcome, or the possibility of a synergistic effect. We completed sensitivity analysis, excluding trials with at least one trait with high risk of bias. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADEpro guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-five RCTs with a total of 19,174 participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in the type of sutures used, methods of closure and patient population. Many of the included studies reported multiple comparisons.For our primary outcome, the proportion of participants who developed incisional hernia at one year or more of follow-up, we did not find evidence that suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.32, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 6.35, very low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35, moderate-quality evidence) resulted in a difference in the risk of incisional hernia. We did, however, find evidence to suggest that monofilament sutures reduced the risk of incisional hernia when compared with multifilament sutures (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.98, I2 = 30%, moderate-quality evidence).For our secondary outcomes, we found that none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound infection, whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.17, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.57, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30, low-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.34, moderate-quality evidence).Similarily, none of the interventions reduced the risk of wound dehiscence whether based on suture absorption (absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.10, moderate-quality evidence; or slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.61, moderate-quality evidence), closure method (mass versus layered, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.52, moderate-quality evidence) or closure technique (continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.64, moderate-quality evidence).Absorbable sutures, compared with non-absorbable sutures (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.94, low-quality evidence) reduced the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation. None of the other comparisons showed a difference (slow versus fast absorbable sutures, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.05 to 16.05, very low-quality evidence; mass versus layered, RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62, low-quality evidence; continuous versus interrupted, RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.61, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on this moderate-quality body of evidence, monofilament sutures may reduce the risk of incisional hernia. Absorbable sutures may also reduce the risk of sinus or fistula tract formation, but this finding is based on low-quality evidence.We had serious concerns about the design or reporting of several of the 55 included trials. The comparator arms in many trials differed by more than one component, making it impossible to attribute differences between groups to any one component. In addition, the patient population included in many of the studies was very heterogeneous. Trials included both emergency and elective cases, different types of disease pathology (e.g. colon surgery, hepatobiliary surgery, etc.) or different types of incisions (e.g. midline, paramedian, subcostal).Consequently, larger, high-quality trials to further address this clinical challenge are warranted. Future studies should ensure that proper randomisation and allocation techniques are performed, wound assessors are blinded, and that the duration of follow-up is adequate. It is important that only one type of intervention is compared between groups. In addition, a homogeneous patient population would allow for a more accurate assessment of the interventions.

Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART) - Abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Incisional hernias are common complications of midline closure following abdominal surgery and cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life and increased health care costs.

The ‘Hughes Repair’ combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. This theoretically distributes the load along the incision length as well as across it. There is evidence to suggest that this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared the Hughes Repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation following a midline incision.

Methods/design

This is a 1:1 randomised controlled trial comparing two suture techniques for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer. Full ethical approval has been gained (Wales REC 3, MREC 12/WA/0374). Eight hundred patients will be randomised from approximately 20 general surgical units within the United Kingdom. Patients undergoing open or laparoscopic (more than a 5-cm midline incision) surgery for colorectal cancer, elective or emergency, are eligible. Patients under the age of 18 years, those having mesh inserted or undergoing musculofascial flap closure of the perineal defect in abdominoperineal wound closure, and those unable to give informed consent will be excluded. Patients will be randomised intraoperatively to either the Hughes Repair or standard mass closure. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year as assessed by standardised clinical examination. The secondary outcomes include quality of life patient-reported outcome measures, cost-utility analysis, incidence of complete abdominal wound dehiscence and C-POSSUM scores. The incidence of incisional hernia at 1 year, assessed by computerised tomography, will form a tertiary outcome.

Discussion

A feasibility phase has been completed. The results of the study will be used to inform current and future practice and potentially reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation following midline incisions.

Trial registration

Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 25616490. Registered on 1 January 2012.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1573-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of Factors Affecting Midline Incisional Hernia Rates: Analysis of 14,618 Patients

BACKGROUND

The incidence of incisional hernias (IHs) following midline abdominal incisions is difficult to estimate. Furthermore recent analyses have reported inconsistent findings on the superiority of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the mean IH rate following midline laparotomy from the published literature, to identify variables that predict IH rates and to analyse whether the type of suture (absorbable versus non-absorbable) affects IH rates.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We sought randomised trials and observational studies including patients undergoing midline incisions with standard suture closure. Papers describing two or more arms suitable for inclusion had data abstracted independently for each arm.

RESULTS

Fifty-six papers, describing 83 separate groups comprising 14,618 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of IHs after midline incision was 12.8% (range: 0 to 35.6%) at a weighted mean of 23.7 months. The estimated risk of undergoing IH repair after midline laparotomy was 5.2%. Two meta-regression analyses (A and B) each identified seven characteristics associated with increased IH rate: one patient variable (higher age), two surgical variables (surgery for AAA and either surgery for obesity surgery (model A) or using an upper midline incision (model B)), two inclusion criteria (including patients with previous laparotomies and those with previous IHs), and two circumstantial variables (later year of publication and specifying an exact significance level). There was no significant difference in IH rate between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures either alone or in conjunction with either regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The IH rate estimated by pooling the published literature is 12.8% after about two years. Seven factors account for the large variation in IH rates across groups. However there is no evidence that suture type has an intrinsic effect on IH rates.

Risk Factors for the Development of an Incisional Hernia after Sigmoid Resection for Diverticulitis: An Analysis of 33 Patient, Operative and Disease-associated Factors

Incisional hernia (IH) is a relatively common sequelae of sigmoidectomy for diverticulitis. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that may predict IH in diverticulitis patients. Two hundred and one diverticulitis patients undergoing sigmoidectomy between January 2002 and December 2012 were identified (mean follow-up 5.15 ± 2.33 years). Patients with wound infections were excluded. Thirteen patient-associated, three diverticular disease-related, and 17 operative variables were evaluated in patients with and without IH. Volumetric fat was measured on pre-operative CTs. Fischer's exact, χ2, and Mann–Whitney tests and multivariate regression analysis were used for statistics. Thirty-four (17%) patients had an IH. On multivariate analysis, wound packing (OR 3.4, P = 0.017), postoperative nonwound infection (OR 7.4, P = 0.014), and previous hernia (OR 3.6, P = 0.005) were as independent predictors of IH. Fifteen of 34 (44%) patients who developed a hernia had a history of prior hernia. Of 33 potential risk factors analyzed, including smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and obesity, the only patient factor present preoperatively associated with increased risk of a postsigmoidectomy hernia after multivariate analysis was a history of a previous hernia. Preoperative identification of patients with a history of hernia offers the opportunity to employ measures to decrease the likelihood of IH.

Prophylactic mesh placement in high-risk patients undergoing elective laparotomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a significant complication in patients undergoing elective laparotomy. Its incidence is increased in patients with risk factors, such as obesity and chronic respiratory disease. The purpose of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the use of prophylactic mesh placement following laparotomy in high-risk patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database was conducted. Outcome measures were incidence of postoperative incisional hernia, seroma, and wound infection rates.

RESULTS

Five randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and four comparative studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified. In total, 464 patients who underwent laparotomy closure with mesh placement and 755 patients who underwent conventional laparotomy closure were included. A reduced incidence of incisional hernia was observed when laparotomy was combined with prophylactic mesh placement in pooled analysis of RCTs (pooled odds ratio = 0.32; 95 % confidence interval = 0.12-0.83; P = 0.02) and comparative studies (pooled odds ratio = 0.11; 95 % confidence interval = 0.04-0.33; P < 0.001) respectively. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of seroma or wound infection following prophylactic mesh placement.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pooled analysis suggest a benefit to prophylactic mesh placement during laparotomy closure in high-risk patients with a significantly reduced incidence of incisional hernia without any significant differences in seroma formation and wound infection rates. Further studies must evaluate the incidence of mesh-specific complications, including foreign body sensation and chronic pain, before strong recommendations can be made.

Incidence and prevention of ventral incisional hernia

OBJECTIVE

Ventral incisional hernia is a common complication of abdominal surgery. The incidence ranges from 2% to 20% and varies greatly from one series to another. The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, risk factors, and preventive measures for ventral incisional hernia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analysis of the surgical literature was performed using the search engines EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed with the keywords: abdominal hernia, wound dehiscence, incisional hernia, incidence, trocar site hernia, and hernia prevention.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy was 9.9%. The incidence was significantly higher for midline incisions compared with transverse incisions (11% vs. 4.7%; P=0.006). In contrast, the incidence of ventral hernia was only 0.7% after laparoscopy. A compilation of all the studies comparing laparotomy to laparoscopy showed a significantly higher incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy (P=0.001). Independent risk factors for incisional hernia included age and infectious complications. Only two meta-analyses were able to show a significant decrease in risk-related to the use of non absorbable or slowly absorbable suture material. No difference in incisional hernia risk was shown with different suture techniques (11.1% for running suture, 9.8% for interrupted sutures: NS).

CONCLUSION

A review of the literature shows that only the choice of incisional approach (transverse incision or laparotomy vs. midline laparotomy) allows a significant decrease in the incidence of ventral incisional hernia.

Incidence and prevention of ventral incisional hernia

OBJECTIVE

Ventral incisional hernia is a common complication of abdominal surgery. The incidence ranges from 2% to 20% and varies greatly from one series to another. The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, risk factors, and preventive measures for ventral incisional hernia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analysis of the surgical literature was performed using the search engines EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed with the keywords: abdominal hernia, wound dehiscence, incisional hernia, incidence, trocar site hernia, and hernia prevention.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy was 9.9%. The incidence was significantly higher for midline incisions compared with transverse incisions (11% vs. 4.7%; P=0.006). In contrast, the incidence of ventral hernia was only 0.7% after laparoscopy. A compilation of all the studies comparing laparotomy to laparoscopy showed a significantly higher incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy (P=0.001). Independent risk factors for incisional hernia included age and infectious complications. Only two meta-analyses were able to show a significant decrease in risk-related to the use of non absorbable or slowly absorbable suture material. No difference in incisional hernia risk was shown with different suture techniques (11.1% for running suture, 9.8% for interrupted sutures: NS).

CONCLUSION

A review of the literature shows that only the choice of incisional approach (transverse incision or laparotomy vs. midline laparotomy) allows a significant decrease in the incidence of ventral incisional hernia.

Randomised prospective study of abdominal wall closure in patients with gynaecological cancer

BACKGROUND

Median laparotomy is the most common approach to the abdominopelvic cavity in patients with gynaecological tumours.

AIMS

The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the onset of incisional hernia. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the onset of infection, wound dehiscence, wound infection, and scar pain during the post-operative period.

METHODS

A total of 191 patients were eligible for the study. They were divided into three groups. Group A underwent en bloc closure of the peritoneum and fascia with Premilene suture, Group B en bloc closure of the peritoneum and fascia with Polydioxanone suture, and Group C separate closure of the peritoneum and fascia with single stitches of Ethibond suture. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Software Package for Social Sciences 12.0.

RESULTS

Group A and Group B comprised 63 patients, and Group C included 65 patients. The three groups proved homogeneous on statistical analysis (P > 0.05). The statistical analysis did not reveal significant differences between the different suture types and techniques with respect to the incidence of incisional hernia (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In our study, the incidence of incisional hernia was 8%. Randomised patients were homogeneous for sample size and risk factors. No significant differences were found between suture types or techniques. Currently, there is no suture material or technique that can be considered superior to others. When possible, we believe that the best way to prevent incisional hernia is to preserve the integrity of the abdominal wall using minimally invasive techniques.

Ventral hernia following primary laparotomy for ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the incidence and risk factors for ventral hernia development following primary laparotomy for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers.

METHODS

All patients who underwent primary laparotomy for ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer from 3/05 to 12/07 were identified. Hernias were identified radiographically or during physical exam. One-year and 2-year hernia rates were calculated. Clinicopathologic factors were evaluated for an association with the development of hernia using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 239 cases with 12 months of follow-up. Median age was 60 years (17-89 years), and median body mass index (BMI) was 25.0 kg/m(2) (16.9-58.5 kg/m(2)). Advanced stage disease (FIGO stage III/IV) was diagnosed in 182/239 (76%). The 1-year hernia rate was 8.8% (21/239): 13/21 (61.9%) were symptomatic, and 8/21 (38.1%) underwent hernia repair operations. On multivariate analysis, only BMI (p=0.004) and intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy (p=0.016) retained their independent association with hernia development by 12 months. Of the 239 patients, 167 had 24 months of follow-up. The 2-year hernia rate was 23.4% (39/167): 25/39 (64.1%) were symptomatic, and 17/39 (43.6%) underwent hernia repair operations. Multivariate analysis in this group demonstrated that advanced stage (p=0.033), wound complications (p=0.029), and BMI (p=0.012) were independently associated with hernia development by 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of ventral hernia is a significant postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing primary surgery for ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer. Independent associations with hernia development include: BMI and IP chemotherapy by Year 1, and BMI, wound complications and advanced stage by Year 2.

Elective midline laparotomy closure: the INLINE systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the optimal technique and material for abdominal fascia closure after midline laparotomy, first by means of a precisely defined study population and follow-up period and second by the surgically driven aspects.

METHODS

Overview of existing systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials in elective and emergency populations comparing suture techniques (continuous vs. interrupted) and materials (rapidly vs. slowly vs. nonabsorbable). Random effects conventional and cumulative meta-analyses were calculated and presented as odds ratios and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Five systematic reviews and 14 trials including 7711 patients (6752 midline incisions) were analyzed. None of the systematic reviews differentiated elective versus emergency laparotomy. The analysis of available primary studies revealed significant lower hernia rates using a continuous (vs. interrupted) technique (OR: 0.59; P=0.001) with slowly absorbable (vs. rapid-absorbable) suture material (OR: 0.65; P=0.009) in the elective setting, which was in contrast to the conflicting results of existing systematic reviews. No statistical heterogeneity was detected in the elective setting (I=0%). Seven studies incorporating elective and emergency procedures revealed inconclusive and heterogeneous results (I=45%-85%). No studies have evaluated closure methods solely in the emergency setting so far.

CONCLUSION

No further trials should be conducted for evaluation of technique and available materials for elective midline abdominal fascial closure, according to the results of our cumulative meta-analysis. Future trials will have to define the optimal closure strategy in the emergency setting and relevance of new suture materials and other strategies such as the use of prophylactic mesh in targeted subpopulations.

Complications of gynecologic surgery

Complications during gynecologic surgery result from the proximity of the uterus and ovaries to other critical pelvic structures. These structures include the urinary tract, bowel, nerves, and vasculature. Knowledge of pelvic anatomy is important when performing these procedures and is critical in cases of altered anatomy from adhesive disease and during intraoperative hemorrhage. Recognition and repair of an unintended injury gives the best chance for minimizing sequelae from these complications.

RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF SKIN CLOSURE AFTER LAPAROTOMY FOR GYNAECOLOGICAL SURGERY

BACKGROUND

New suture materials may provide patients with a better cosmetic outcome at similar pain and wound complication rate.

METHODS

To assess pain and cosmetic outcome among patients randomized to receive wound closure after laparotomy for gynaecological surgery using staples, polyglecaprone 25 or polyglecaprone 6211 subcuticular sutures.

RESULTS

Overall, 90 patients (87.4% consent rate) were randomized. There was no difference in wound complications and pain between the three groups. Patients randomized to polyglecaprone 6211 subcuticular sutures rated the cosmetic result at 1 and 6 weeks after surgery somewhat lower than patients randomized to the two alternative groups; however, at 3 months after surgery, all three groups rated the cosmetic result as similar.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the three wound closure methods have similar short-term pain and cosmetic outcomes, as well as a similar rate of wound complications, leaving the decision of the most appropriate closure method to individual surgeons.

Decision analysis model of incisional hernia after open abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

The incidence rate of incisional hernias after open surgery has been reported to be higher than that of port site hernias after laparoscopic surgery. No studies have compared the costs for the health care system in treating those two types of hernia.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to obtain the baseline data, and a decision analysis model was created to simulate the occurrence and recurrence of incisional and port site hernias.

RESULTS

The overall risk of having incisional hernias was eight-times higher than that of having port site hernias (7.4% vs 0.9%). A cost savings of 93 British Pound per patient can be generated for the health care system in the UK. Similar results were obtained for Germany, Italy and France.

CONCLUSIONS

The additional treatment costs for incisional hernia should be taken into account when the costs of a surgery performed by open approach are compared with by laparoscopy.

Finding the best abdominal closure: An evidence-based review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in surgical technique and materials, abdominal fascial closure has remained a procedure that often reflects a surgeon's personal preference with a reliance on tradition and anecdotal experience. The value of a particular abdominal fascial closure technique may be measured by the incidence of early and late wound complications, and the best abdominal closure technique should be fast, easy, and cost-effective, while preventing both early and late complications. This study addresses the closure of the vertical midline laparotomy incision.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland) search was performed. All articles related to abdominal fascia closure published from 1966 to 2003 were included in the review.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful analysis of the current surgical literature, including 4 recently published meta-analyses, indicates that a consistent conclusion can be made regarding an optimal technique. That technique involves mass closure, incorporating all of the layers of the abdominal wall (except skin) as 1 structure, in a simple running technique, using #1 or #2 absorbable monofilament suture material with a suture length to wound length ratio of 4 to 1.

Continuous abdominal fascial closure: a randomized controlled trial of poly(L-lactide/glycolide)

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare the handling characteristics and </=6 month clinical outcome using a No. 1 long-term absorbable multifilament suture poly(L-lactide/glycolide) (PLG) or the permanent monofilament (No. 1) polypropolene using a continuous fascial closure.

METHODS

During the 13-month study interval, 203 high-risk patients were enrolled in this randomized prospective trial. All were managed under a strict perioperative management protocol.

RESULTS

There was no clinically significant difference in patient demographics. Seventy percent carried a diagnosis of abdominal malignancy. The mean body mass index of the population was 33.1. Wound variables including incision length, incision site, measured subcutaneous tissue thickness, and method of subcutaneous dissection did not differ. During the evaluation of suture handling properties PLG was judged to be statistically superior (P < 0.001) in lack of springback, knot tie-down smoothness, knot security, knot strength, and surgical hand. The monofilament suture was judged superior (P < 0001) in ease of tissue passage. There was no difference in incisional pain, suture rejection, superficial wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, or hernia.

CONCLUSION

PLG suture represents a suitable nonpermanent suture alternative for fascial closure in patients at risk for poor wound outcome.

Meta-analysis of techniques for closure of midline abdominal incisions

BACKGROUND

Various randomized studies have evaluated techniques of abdominal fascia closure but controversy remains, leaving surgeons uncertain about the optimal method of preventing incisional hernia.

METHOD

Medline and Embase databases were searched. All trials with a follow-up of at least 1 year that randomized patients with midline laparotomies to closure of the fascia by different suture techniques and/or suture materials were subjected to meta-analysis. Primary outcome was incisional hernia; secondary outcomes were wound dehiscence, wound infection, wound pain and suture sinus formation.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified with a total of 6566 patients. Closure by continuous rapidly absorbable suture was followed by significantly more incisional hernias than closure by continuous slowly absorbable suture (P < 0.009) or non-absorbable suture (P = 0.001). No difference in incisional hernia incidence was found between slowly absorbable and non-absorbable sutures (P = 0.75), but more wound pain (P < 0.005) and more suture sinuses (P = 0.02) occurred after the use of non-absorbable suture. Similar outcomes were observed with continuous and interrupted sutures, but continuous sutures took less time to insert.

CONCLUSION

To reduce the incidence of incisional hernia without increasing wound pain or suture sinus frequency, slowly absorbable continuous sutures appear to be the optimal method of fascial closure.

Wound closure technique and acute wound complications in gastric surgery for morbid obesity: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

During the past 10 years, numerous clinical studies have supported the use of continuous monofilament fascial closure after laparotomy. Because of the increased incidence of surgical-site infections and other acute wound complications in the morbidly obese, these patients are well suited for a study of technical factors that may affect the frequency of these wound complications.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized study of the midline fascial closure technique in gastric bariatric operations was conducted between 1991 and 1998 in 331 consecutive morbidly obese patients. At the time of closure of the upper midline laparotomy wound, the patients were randomized into two groups: Group I patients (n = 172) underwent continuous fascial closure and group II patients (n = 159) underwent interrupted fascial closure. All patients received prophylactic antibiotics in a similar fashion. Wounds were monitored for 30 days postoperatively, and acute wound complications were classified as superficial or deep. Superficial complications included superficial surgical-site infections, seromas, and hematomas. In all superficial complications, the fascia remained uninvolved and intact. Deep wound complications included deep surgical-site infections and fascial dehiscence.

RESULTS

A total of 49 acute wound complications occurred (15%). There were 22 superficial (7%) and 27 deep (8%) wound complications in the 331 in the patients studied. Group I patients experienced fewer total wound complications than group II patients (18 versus 31; p=0.021). Group I patients also experienced fewer deep wound complications than group II (5 versus 22; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous fascial closure reduces major acute wound complications in morbidly obese patients undergoing gastric operations for obesity.