Component separation technique for giant incisional hernia: A systematic review

Cornette, Bram; Bacquer, Dirk De

doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.07.032

Cited by 81 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 35 new published articles involved with wound infection, 24 studies reported less wound infection with laparoscopy [1, 3, 6-9, 13, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29-40], and 11 more reported no significant difference between two groups [2,4,5,12,14,20,23,25,28,41,42]. No study supported open approach.…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))—Part A

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2014, the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) published the first international "Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias." Guidelines reflect the currently best available evidence in diagnostics and therapy and give recommendations to help surgeons to standardize their techniques and to improve their results. However, science is a dynamic field which is continuously developing. Therefore, guidelines require regular updates to keep pace with the evolving literature. Methods For the development of the original guidelines, all relevant literature published up to year 2012 was analyzed using the ranking of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For the present update, all of the previous authors were asked to evaluate the literature published during the recent years from 2012 to 2017 and revise their statements and recommendations given in the initial guidelines accordingly. In two Consensus Conferences (October 2017 Beijing, March 2018 Cologne), the updates were presented, discussed, and confirmed. To avoid redundancy, only new statements or recommendations are included in this paper. Therefore, for full understanding both of the guidelines, the original and the current, must be read. In addition, the new developments in repair of abdominal wall hernias like surgical techniques within the abdominal wall, release operations (transversus muscle release, component separation), Botox application, and robot-assisted repair methods were included. Results Due to an increase of the number of patients and further development of surgical techniques, repair of primary and secondary abdominal wall hernias attracts increasing interests of many surgeons. Whereas up to three decades ago hernia-related publications did not exceed 20 per year, currently this number is about 10-fold higher. Recent years are characterized by the advent of new techniques-minimal invasive techniques using robotics and laparoscopy, totally extraperitoneal repairs, novel myofascial release techniques for optimal closure of large defects, and Botox for relaxing the abdominal wall. Furthermore, a concomitant rectus diastasis was recognized as a significant risk factor for recurrence. Despite insufficient evidence with respect to these new techniques, it seemed to us necessary to include them in the update to stimulate surgeons to do research in these fields. Conclusion Guidelines are recommendations based on best available evidence intended to help the surgeon to improve the quality of his daily work. However, science is a continuously evolving process, and as such guidelines should be updated about every 3 years. For a comprehensive reference, however, it is suggested to read both the initial guidelines published in 2014 together with the update. Moreover, the presented update includes also techniques which were not known 3 years before.

show abstract

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))—Part A

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The recent systematic review by Cornette et al ( 30 ) included 22 studies with 1,348 cases for open anterior approach and eight studies with 761 cases for posterior CST with transversus abdominis release (TAR). They found surgical site occurrence rates of 21.4% for the open anterior approach and 20.3% for posterior CST with TAR.…”

Section: Does Posterior Cst Have Better Results Than Anterior Cst?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent systematic review of CST for giant incisional hernia reported for open anterior CST and endoscopic anterior CST surgical site occurrences of 21.4 and 20.3%, respectively, and recurrence rates of 11.9 and 7%, respectively ( 30 ).…”

Section: Cst Modificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We Know About Component Separation Techniques for Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe component separation technique (CST) was introduced to abdominal wall reconstruction to treat large, complex hernias. It is very difficult to compare the published findings because of the vast number of technical modifications to CST as well as the heterogeneity of the patient population operated on with this technique.Material and MethodsThe main focus of the literature search conducted up to August 2017 in Medline and PubMed was on publications reporting comparative findings as well as on systematic reviews in order to formulate statements regarding the various CSTs.ResultsCST without mesh should no longer be performed because of too high recurrence rates. Open anterior CST has too high a surgical site occurrence rate and henceforth should only be conducted as endoscopic and perforator sparing anterior CST. Open posterior CST and posterior CST with transversus abdominis release (TAR) produce better results than open anterior CST. To date, no significant differences have been found between endoscopic anterior, perforator sparing anterior CST and posterior CST with transversus abdominis release. Robot-assisted posterior CST with TAR is the latest, very promising alternative. The systematic use of biologic meshes cannot be recommended for CST.ConclusionCST should always be performed with mesh as endoscopic or perforator sparing anterior or posterior CST. Robot-assisted posterior CST with TAR is the latest development.

show abstract

“…[3][4][5][6] Moreover, treatment efficacy greatly deteriorates, in patients presenting with giant, otherwise complex, or incarcerated IHs. [10][11][12]16 In recent years, many different patient-reported outcomes have been developed in various health care settings, including inguinal hernia and recurrent IH. [16][17][18][19][20][21] The overall goal of patient-reported outcomes is to make subjective findings objective and measurable, to screen patients for occurring disease or disease progression, and to improve patientphysician communication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incisional Hernia Cannot Be Diagnosed by a Patient-Reported Diagnostic Questionnaire

Sneiders

Jairam

Smet

et al. 2020

Journal of Surgical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Component separation technique for giant incisional hernia: A systematic review

Cited by 81 publications

References 58 publications

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))—Part A

Update of Guidelines for laparoscopic treatment of ventral and incisional abdominal wall hernias (International Endohernia Society (IEHS))—Part A

What Do We Know About Component Separation Techniques for Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair?

Incisional Hernia Cannot Be Diagnosed by a Patient-Reported Diagnostic Questionnaire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About