No abstract

Summary Background Reoperation rates are high after surgery for hip fractures. We investigated the effect of a sliding hip screw versus cancellous screws on the risk of reoperation and other key outcomes. Methods For this international, multicentre, allocation concealed randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 50 years or older with a low-energy hip fracture requiring fracture fixation from 81 clinical centres in eight countries. Patients were assigned by minimisation with a centralised computer system to receive a single large-diameter screw with a side-plate (sliding hip screw) or the present standard of care, multiple small-diameter cancellous screws. Surgeons and patients were not blinded but the data analyst, while doing the analyses, remained blinded to treatment groups. The primary outcome was hip reoperation within 24 months after initial surgery to promote fracture healing, relieve pain, treat infection, or improve function. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761813. Findings Between March 3, 2008, and March 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 1108 patients to receive a sliding hip screw (n=557) or cancellous screws (n=551). Reoperations within 24 months did not differ by type of surgical fixation in those included in the primary analysis: 107 (20%) of 542 patients in the sliding hip screw group versus 117 (22%) of 537 patients in the cancellous screws group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.63–1.09; p=0.18). Avascular necrosis was more common in the sliding hip screw group than in the cancellous screws group (50 patients [9%] vs 28 patients [5%]; HR 1.91, 1.06–3.44; p=0.0319). However, no significant difference was found between the number of medically related adverse events between groups (p=0.82; appendix); these events included pulmonary embolism (two patients [<1%] vs four [1%] patients; p=0.41) and sepsis (seven [1%] vs six [1%]; p=0.79). Interpretation In terms of reoperation rates the sliding hip screw shows no advantage, but some groups of patients (smokers and those with displaced or base of neck fractures) might do better with a sliding hip screw than with cancellous screws. Funding National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stichting NutsOhra, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Physicians’ Services Incorporated.

BackgroundDiastasis of the rectus abdominis muscles (DRAM) is characterised by thinning and widening of the linea alba, combined with laxity of the ventral abdominal musculature. This causes the midline to “bulge” when intra-abdominal pressure is increased. Plastic surgery treatment for DRAM has been thoroughly evaluated, though general surgical treatments and the efficacy of physiotherapy remain elusive. The aim of this systematic literature review is to evaluate both general surgical and physiotherapeutic treatment options for restoring DRAM in terms of postoperative complications, patient satisfaction, and recurrence rates.MethodMEDLINE®, Embase, PubMed, PubMed Central®, The cochrane central registry of controlled trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) were searched using the following terms: ‘rectus diastasis’, ‘diastasis recti’, ‘midline’, and ‘abdominal wall’. All clinical studies concerning general surgical or physiotherapeutic treatment of DRAM were eligible for inclusion.ResultTwenty articles describing 1.691 patients (1.591 surgery/100 physiotherapy) were included. Surgical interventions were classified as plication techniques (313 patients; 254 open/59 laparoscopic), modified hernia repair techniques (68 patients, all open), and combined hernia & DRAM techniques (1.210 patients; 1.149 open/40 hybrid). The overall methodological quality was low. Plication techniques with interrupted sutures and mesh reinforcement were applied most frequently for DRAM repair. Open repairs were performed in 85% of patients. There was no difference in postoperative complications or recurrence rate after laparoscopic or open procedures, or between plication and modified hernia repair techniques. Physiotherapy programmes were unable to reduce IRD in a relaxed state. Though reduction of IRD during muscle contraction was described.ConclusionBoth plication-based methods and hernia repair methods are used for DRAM repair. Based on the current literature, no clear distinction in recurrence rate, postoperative complications, or patient reported outcomes can be made. Complete resolution of DRAM, measured in a relaxed state, following a physiotherapy training programme is not described in current literature. Physiotherapy can achieve a limited reduction in IRD during muscle contraction, though the impact of this finding on patient satisfaction, cosmesis, or function outcome is unclear.

Prophylactic augmentation of the abdominal wall with a retromuscular lightweight polypropylene mesh at the ostomy site significantly reduces the incidence of PSH without a significant difference in morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.

Background and method: Techniques for autologous repair of abdominal wall defects that could not be closed primarily are reviewed. Medline and PubMed were searched for English or German publications using the following keywords: components separation technique (CST), Ramirez, da Silva, fascia lata, tensor fasciae latae, latissimus dorsi, rectus femoris, myocutaneous flap, ((auto)dermal) graft, dermoplasty, cutisplasty, hernia, abdominal wall defect, or combinations thereof. Publications were analysed for methodological quality, and data on surgical technique, mortality, morbidity and reherniation were abstracted.

Background: Reconstruction of giant midline abdominal wall hernias is difficult, and no data are available to decide which technique should be used. It was the aim of this study to compare the ''components separation technique'' (CST) versus prosthetic repair with e-PTFE patch (PR). Method: Patients with giant midline abdominal wall hernias were randomized for CST or PR. Patients underwent operation following standard procedures. Postoperative morbidity was scored on a standard form, and patients were followed for 36 months after operation for recurrent hernia. Results: Between November 1999 and June 2001, 39 patients were randomized for the study, 19 for CST and 18 for PR. Two patients were excluded perioperatively because of gross contamination of the operative field. No differences were found between the groups at baseline with respect to demographic details, co-morbidity, and size of the defect. There was no in-hospital mortality. Wound complications were found in 10 of 19 patients after CST and 13 of 18 patients after PR. Seroma was found more frequently after PR. In 7 of 18 patients after PR, the prosthesis had to be removed as a consequence of early or late infection. Reherniation occurred in 10 patients after CST and in 4 patients after PR. Conclusions: Repair of abdominal wall hernias with the component separation technique compares favorably with prosthetic repair. Although the reherniation rate after CST is relatively high, the consequences of wound healing disturbances in the presence of e-PTFE patch are far-reaching, often resulting in loss of the prosthesis.

No abstract

During open and elective formation of an end-colostomy, primary placement of a retromuscular light-weight polypropylene mesh for prevention of a parastomal hernia is a safe and feasible procedure. The PREVENT trial is registered at: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2018 .