There is good evidence from three trials that open mesh repair is superior to suture repair in terms of recurrences, but inferior when considering wound infection. Six trials yielded insufficient evidence as to which type of mesh or which mesh position (on- or sublay) should be used. There was also insufficient evidence to advocate the use of the components separation technique.
Background The objective of this study is to determine the reliability and validity of ultrasonography (US) in diagnosing incisional hernias in comparison with computed tomography (CT). The CT scans were assessed by two radiologists in order to estimate the inter-observer variation and twice by one radiologist to estimate the intra-observer variation. Patients were evaluated after reconstruction for an abdominal aortic aneurysm or an aortoiliac occlusion. Methods Patients with a midline incision after undergoing reconstruction of an abdominal aortic aneurysm or aortoiliac occlusion were examined by CT scanning and US. Two radiologists evaluated the CT scans independently. One radiologist examined the CT scans twice. Discrepancies between the CT observations were resolved in a common evaluation session between the two radiologists.Results After a mean follow-up of 3.4 years, 40 patients were imaged after a reconstructed abdominal aortic aneurysm (80% of the patients) or aortoiliac occlusion. The prevalence of incisional hernias was 24/40 = 60.0% with CT scanning as the diagnostic modality and 17/40 = 42.5% with US. The measure of agreement between CT scanning and US expressed as a Kappa statistic was 0.66 (95% conWdence interval [CI] 0.45-0.88). The sensitivity of US examination when using CT as a comparison was 70.8%, the speciWcity was 100%, the predictive value of a positive US was 100%, and the predictive value of a negative US was 69.6%. The likelihood ratio of a positive US was inWnite and that of a negative US was 0.29. The inter-and intraobserver Kappa statistics were 0.74 (CI 0.54-0.95) and 0.80 (CI 0.62-0.99), respectively. Conclusions US imaging has a moderate sensitivity and negative predictive value, and a very good speciWcity and positive predictive value. Consistency of diagnosis, as determined by calculating the inter-and intra-observer Kappa statistics, was good. The incidence of incisional hernias is high after aortic reconstructions.
Background Incisional hernia is a serious complication after abdominal surgery and occurs in 11-23% of laparotomies. Repair can be done, for instance, with a direct suture technique, but recurrence rates are high. Recent literature advises the use of mesh repair. In contrast to this development, we studied the use of a direct suture repair in a separate layer technique. The objective of this retrospective observational study is to assess the outcomes (recurrences and complications) of a two-layered open closure repair for primary and recurrent midline incisional hernia without the use of mesh. Methods In an observational retrospective cohort study, we analysed the hospital and outpatient records of 77 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for a primary or recurrent incisional hernia between 1st May 2002 and 8th November 2006. The repair consisted of separate continuous suturing of the anterior and posterior fascia, including the rectus muscle, after extensive intra-abdominal adhesiolysis. Results Forty-one men (53.2%) and 36 women (46.8%) underwent surgery. Sixty-three operations (81.8%) were primary repairs and 14 (18.2%) were repairs for a recurrent incisional hernia. Of the 66 patients, on physical examination, three had a recurrence (4.5%) after an average follow-up of 2.6 years. The 30-day postoperative mortality was 1.1%. Wound infection was seen in Wve patients (6.5%). Conclusions A two-layered suture repair for primary and recurrent incisional hernia repair without mesh with extensive adhesiolysis was associated with a recurrence rate comparable to mesh repair and had an acceptable complication rate.
Background Incisional hernias occur frequently after abdominal surgery and can cause serious complications. The choice of a type of open operative repair is controversial. Determining the type of open operative repair is controversial, as the recurrence rate may be as high as 54%. Objectives To identify the best available open operative techniques for incisional hernias. Search strategy Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1990 to 2007 and trials were identified from the known trial reference lists. Selection criteria Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized trials comparing different techniques for open operative techniques for incisional hernias. Data collection & analysis Statistical analyses were performed using the fixed effects model. Results were expressed as relative risk for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals.
One-stop endoscopic TEP inguinal hernia surgery is feasible and safe. The majority of patients would give preference to a repeated procedure if necessary. This clinical pathway reduces the number of patient visits to the hospital for inguinal hernia repair and also suggests cost efficiency.
We illustrate the various sonographic (US) appearances of the abdominal wall following this type of repair, including partial and complete recurrences. Correlation is made with CT imaging. The three-layered anatomical reconstruction of an incisional hernia is described.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.