The use of component separation during abdominal wall reconstruction in contaminated fields: A case-control analysis
Introduction
Ventral hernia repair (VHR) remains one of the most common surgeries in the United States with over 350,000 cases performed yearly.1 Achievement of fascial re-approximation, mesh reinforcement, reduced incidence of wound complications, and the avoidance of bridging meshes have all been demonstrated to reduce recurrence rates.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 When the fascial defect is large and there is loss of domain, component separation techniques (CST) may be required to allow for medialization of the linea alba and approximation of the fascia in the midline. The term CST was coined by Ramirez etĀ al., in 1990 when they described the release of the external oblique (EOR) combined with posterior rectus sheath release.10 However, the use of fascial division to allow for ātension reliefā to assist in repair of ventral hernias was described by Young in the early 1960s.11 Perhaps the greatest challenge of these operations, especially EOR with large skin flap dissection, is the increased risk of wound complications.12 Given this and the musculo-fascial division required as part of CST, the performance of CST versus a bridging technique might be questioned. In a recent meta-analysis, Holihan etĀ al. examined CST versus a bridging mesh repair and demonstrated that CST was associated with a decrease in recurrence rate.7 In a more recent study examining 775 CSTs, our group demonstrated similar findings.13
Surgical wound class defined by the level of contamination has been well delineated by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC Wound Class from 1 to 4 correlates directly with an increasing risk of surgical site occurrences (SSO), especially infection, in VHR,14 and often results in an alteration in the controversial and much debated mesh selection for these cases.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Wound complications in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) increase hernia recurrence by 3ā5 times compared to those operations without these complications.13,21,22 Thus, the combination of CST used in a contaminated field could potentially pose a marked increased risk of wound complications, which may offset the benefits attributable to CST. The purpose of this study was to be one of the first to examine the outcomes of CST AWR in the setting of CDC class 2, 3, and 4 wounds as compared to similar cases that did not involve CST.
Section snippets
Study population
All CST were performed at the Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. The majority of patients were referred from other centers, frequently with recurrent hernias and most had co-morbidities. All open AWR utilizing CST were examined, including incisional, ventral, and flank hernias. A propensity match was performed for case control.
Study design
After Institutional Review Board approval, an institutional, prospectively-maintained, hernia-specific database was queried for all CST between 2006
Results
There were 286 CSTs performed in contaminated cases. After applying exclusion criteria, there were 186 CSTs analyzed for matching with 63 No-CST cases. After propensity score matching, there were 61 cases with CST matched to 61 cases without CST for comparison.
A subset analysis was performed initially to compare the anterior CST and the posterior CST that were included after matching. Twenty patients received anterior CST and 41 received posterior techniques. These two groups differed in terms
Discussion
This study examined patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair in a contaminated setting and compared outcomes based on performance of CST. This allowed for applicable comparisons in AWR in the setting of CDC class 2, 3, and 4 wounds. The two groups identified have similar pre-operative characteristics with few exceptions, which were limited to COPD and the mean number of previous VHRs. The CST and No-CST groups had very similar hernias, including an equal number of patients in the various
Conclusions
The use of CST in the face of contamination is not associated with an increase in wound complications, mesh infection, or recurrence. These results demonstrate that the use of CST in contaminated fields during preperitoneal open ventral hernia repair is safe and effective.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
Drs. Maloney, Oma, Schlosser, and Sing have nothing to disclose. Ms. Prasad has nothing to disclose. Dr. Kercher is on the speakersā bureau at Bard, Ethicon, and W.L. Gore.
Dr. Colavita is on the speakersā bureau at Allergan.
Dr. Augenstein is on the speakersā bureau at Allergan, Intuitive, Acelity, and W.L. Gore.
Dr. Heniford is on the speakersā bureau at Allergen and W.L. Gore and has received grants from Allergen and W.L. Gore.
References (38)
- et al.
Twelve years of component separation technique (CST) in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR)
Surgery
(2019) - et al.
An evaluation of surgical site infections by wound classification system using the ACS-NSQIP
JĀ Surg Res
(2012) - et al.
Outcomes of synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs
JĀ Am Coll Surg
(2013) - et al.
Predictors of mesh explantation after incisional hernia repair
Am J Surg
(2011) - et al.
Open retromuscular mesh repair of complex incisional hernia: predictors of wound events and recurrence
JĀ Am Coll Surg
(2015) - et al.
Transversus abdominis muscle release: a novel approach to posterior component separation during complex abdominal wall reconstruction
Am J Surg
(2012) - et al.
Component separation technique for giant incisional hernia: a systematic review
Am J Surg
(2018) - et al.
Posterior and open anterior components separations: a comparative analysis
Am J Surg
(2012) - et al.
Computed tomographic measurements predict component separation in ventral hernia repair
JĀ Surg Res
(2015) - et al.
Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research
Hernia
(2012)
Abdominal incision
Lancet
Primary fascial closure with mesh reinforcement is superior to bridged mesh repair for abdominal wall reconstruction
JĀ Am Coll Surg
Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia
Ann Surg
Infection risk of open placement of intraperitoneal composite mesh
Am Surg
Isokinetic strength of the trunk Xexor muscles after surgical repair for incisional hernia
Hernia
Component separation vs. Bridged repair for large ventral hernias: a multi-institutional risk-adjusted comparison, systematic review, and meta-analysis
Surg Infect (Larchmt).
AĀ comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia
NĀ Engl J Med
Primary fascial closure with laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: systematic review
Dan Med J
āComponents separationā method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study
Plast Reconstr Surg
Cited by (12)
Preoperative botulinum toxin A (BTA) injection versus component separation techniques (CST) in complex abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR): A propensity-scored matched study
2023, Surgery (United States)Citation Excerpt :Certainly, there are patient and operative features, such as obese body habitus or contamination (e.g., mesh infection or fistula), that make abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) inherently more complex.4,5 This is compounded by the repair of large and re-operative hernias by scarring and distorted tissue planes.6,7 In patients with loss of domain (LOD) and lateral retraction of abdominal wall musculature, tension free closure of the fascia can be challenging and failure to do so increases the risk of wound complications and hernia recurrence three to five-fold.8,9
Chemical Component Separation Technique in Hernia Repair
2023, Newer Concepts and Procedures in Hernia Surgery - An Atlas