Comparison of the outcomes of ‘component separation with mesh’, ‘component separation without mesh’ and ‘primary prosthetic repair’ methods in complex abdominal wall reconstruction

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare the results of different surgical methods used in giant midline incision hernias.

Methods: The records of 90 patients operated on for a midline abdominal incisional hernia were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into three groups based on the surgical method used primary prosthetic repair (PPR), component separation with mesh (CSM) and component separation without mesh (CS). Two-year follow-up results were compared.

Results: A statistically significant difference was noted between the groups in the transverse diameter measurement of the defect (p = 0.003). Subgroup analyses revealed that the median transverse diameter was higher in the CSM group than in the CS group (p = 0.003). There was also a statistically significant difference in the duration of surgery (p < 0.001), with a subgroup analysis revealing that the duration of surgery was longer in the CSM group than in the PPR and CS groups (PPR-CSM; p = 0.008, CSM-CS; p < 0.001). Recurrent incisional hernia, smoking and postoperative morbidity development were found to be statistically and significantly associated with recurrence (p = 0.005, p = 0.002, p < 0.001; respectively).

Conclusions: The use of the CSM method for the repair of giant incisional hernias may reduce recurrence.

Keywords

• Component separation
• incisional hernia
• mesh
• recurrence

References

1. 1. Hoer J, Lawong G, Klinge U, Schumpelick V. Factors influencing the development of incisional hernia. A retrospective study of 2,983 laparotomy patients over a period of 10 years. Chirurg 2002;73:474-80.
2. 2. Greenawalt KE, Butler TJ, Rowe EA, Finneral AC, Garlick DS, Burns JW. Evaluation of sepramesh biosurgical composite in a rabbit hernia repair model. J Surg Res 2000;94:92-8.
3. 3. Felemovicius I, Bonsack ME, Hagerman G, Delaney JP. Prevention of adhesions to polypropylene mesh. J Am Coll Surg 2004;198:543-8.
4. 4. de Vries Reilingh TS, van Goor H, Charbon JA, Rosman C, Hesselink EJ, van der Wilt GJ, et al. Repair of giant midline abdominal wall hernias:“components separation technique” versus prosthetic repair. World J Surg 2007;31;756-63.
5. 5. Luijendijk RW, Hop WJC, van den Tol MP, de Lange DC, Braaksma MM, Jzermans JN, et al. A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Eng J Med 2000;343:392-98.
6. 6. Young D. Repair of epigastric incisional hernia. Br J Surg 1961;48:514-6.
7. 7. Ramirez OM, Ruas E, Dellon AL. “Components separation” method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;86:519-26.
8. 8. Lowe JB, Garza JR, Bowman JL, Rohrich RJ, Strodel WE. Endoscopically assisted “components separation” for closure of abdominal wall defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:720-30.

9. 9. Maas SM, de Vries RS, van Goor H, de Jong D, Bleichrodt RP. Endoscopically assisted “components separation technique” for the repair of complicated ventral hernias. J Am Coll Surg 2002;194:388-90.
10. 10. Rosen MJ, Jin J, McGee MF, Williams C, Marks J, Ponsky JL. Laparoscopic component separation in the single-stage treatment of infected abdominal wall prosthetic removal. Hernia 2007;11:435-40.
11. 11. Van't Riet M, de Vos van Steenwijk PJ, Bonthuis F, Marquet RL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, et al. Prevention of adhesion to prostetic mesh: comparison of barriers using an incisional hernia model. Ann Surg 2003;237:123-8.
12. 12. Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U, Fabian M, Ferzli G, Fortelny R, et al. Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society [IEHS]) - Part III. Surg Endosc 2014;28:380-404.
13. 13. Bittner R, Bingener-Casey J, Dietz U, Fabian M, Ferzli G, Fortelny R, et al. Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society [IEHS]) - Part II. Surg Endosc 2014;28:353-79.
14. 14. Yoo A, Corso K, Chung G, Sheng R, Schmitz ND. The impact of surgical approach on late recurrence in incisional hernia repair. JSLS 2018;22:e2018.00053.
15. 15. Joels CS, Vanderveer AS, Newcomb WL, Lincourt AE, Polhill JL, Jacobs DF, et al. Abdominal wall reconstruction after temporary abdominal closure: a ten-year review. Surg Innov 2006;13:223-30.
16. 16. Ko JH, Salvay DM, Paul BC, Wang EC, Dumanian GA. Soft polypropylene mesh, but not cadaveric dermis, significantly improves outcomes in midline hernia repairs using the components separation technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124:836-47.
17. 17. Buchwald H. Three helpful techniques for facilitating abdominal procedures, in particular for surgery in the obese. Am J Surg 1998;175:63-4.
18. 18. Petersen S, Henke G, Zimmermann L, Aumann G, Hellmich G, Ludwig K, et al. Ventral rectus fascia closure on top of mesh hernia repair in the sublay technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;114:1754-60.
19. 19. Kulhánek J, Mestak O. [Reconstruction of complex abdominal wall defects using the component separation technique]. Rozhl Chir 2013;92:640-3. [Article in Czech]
20. 20. Ennis LS, Young JS, Gampper TJ, Drake DB. The ‘‘open-book’’ variation of component separation for repair of massive midline abdominal wall hernia. Am Surg 2003;69:733-42.
21. 21. Maloney SR, Schlosser KA, Prasad T, Colavita PD, Kercher KW, Augenstein VA, et al. The impact of component separation technique versus no component separation technique on complications and quality of life in the repair of large ventral hernias. Surg Endosc 2020;34:981-7.