Lateral Incisional Hernia After Renal Transplantation: A Comparative Study

Luc, G.; David, Anaëlle; Couzi, Lionel; Midy, D.; Collet, Denis; Dubuisson, Vincent

doi:10.1007/s00268-014-2689-6

Cited by 13 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent meta‐analysis 114 demonstrated that hernia repair using a prosthetic mesh is associated with a significant reduction in recurrence compared to primary closure alone. This was confirmed even in the transplant population, where the recurrence rate of 4–33% 7,30–32,115,116 is comparable to that observed in the nontransplant population 18,108 . Chang et al., 32 among 42 kidney and pancreas recipients treated for IH, found an overall recurrence rate of 33%; the recurrence rate was higher in patients treated with primary suture repair (46.6%) than in those treated with mesh repair (29.1%) or with the component separation technique (0%).…”

Section: Treatment Of Abdominal Wall Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Although mesh repair is potentially the best option for IH repair in kidney transplant recipients, it may expose, in principle, the patient to an increased risk of infection. However, recent studies demonstrated that IH repair with mesh is associated with a low risk of postoperative infections and complications, 88,109,117,122 with an incidence similar to that observed in the general population, 18,30,31 with an overall morbidity and recurrence rate comparable to that observed in the nontransplant population 18,30,31 …”

Section: Treatment Of Abdominal Wall Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…A well‐performed parietal closure is therefore a key element for reducing the risk of SSI and the risk of IH 21–59 . As a consequence of prolonged immunosuppressive therapy and the higher prevalence of comorbidities, renal recipients would be expected to be at higher risk of incisional hernia 6,60 .…”

Section: Risk Factors For Abdominal Wall Complications After Kidney Transplantationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is no consensus on the correct positioning of mesh during IH repair, and very few studies have reported the position of mesh in IH repair in kidney transplant recipients 5,6,29–31 …”

Section: Treatment Of Abdominal Wall Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Abdominal wall complications after kidney transplantation: A clinical review

Gioco

Sanfilippo

Corona

et al. 2021

Clinical Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Abdominal wall complications are common after kidney transplantation, and although they have a minor impact on patient and graft survival, they increase the patient's morbidity and may have an impact on quality of life. Abdominal wall complications have an overall incidence of 7.7–21%. Methods This review will explore the natural history of abdominal wall complications in the kidney transplant setting, with a special focus on wound dehiscence and incisional herni, with a particular emphasis on risk factors, clinical characteristics, and treatment. Results Many patient‐related risk factors have been suggested, including older age, obesity, and smoking, but kidney transplant recipients have an additional risk related to the use of immunosuppression. Wound dehiscence usually does not require surgical intervention. However, for deep dehiscence involving the fascial layer with concomitant infection, surgical treatment and/or negative pressure wound therapy may be required. Conclusions Incisional hernia (IH) may affect 1.1–18% of kidney transplant recipients. Most patients require surgical treatment, either open or laparoscopic. Mesh repair is considered the gold standard for the treatment of IH, since it is associated with a low rate of postoperative complications and an acceptable rate of recurrence. Biologic mesh could be an attractive alternative in patients with graft exposition or infection.

show abstract

Section: Treatment Of Abdominal Wall Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Treatment Of Abdominal Wall Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Risk Factors For Abdominal Wall Complications After Kidney Transplantationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Treatment Of Abdominal Wall Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Abdominal wall complications after kidney transplantation: A clinical review

Gioco

Sanfilippo

Corona

et al. 2021

Clinical Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, due to the rarity of such surgical condition, no standardized technique can be suggested. Several approaches have been described in the literature and, in the minimally invasive era, the laparoscopic repair with mesh placement whether intraperitoneal or preperitoneal seems to represent a valid treatment option [2,9,10,[16][17][18][19][20][21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic assisted treatment of flank hernias: case series

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Flank hernias are uncommon, surgical treatment is challenging and the minimally-invasive approach not always feasible. The aim of this study was to report the safety and feasibility of the robotic-assisted repair. Methods: The study was approved by the local ethic committee (2019-01132 CE3495). A retrospective search on a prospectively collected dataset including demographic and clinical records on robotic surgery at our institution was performed to identify patients treated for a flank hernia. Patients were followed-up 6 months. Results: From January 2018 to December 2019, out of 190 patients who underwent robotic-assisted hernia surgery, seven with incisional flank hernia were included. Median age was 69.0 years (IQR 63.2-78.0), BMI was 27.3 kg/m 2 (IQR 25.8-32.3) and two patients were male (29%). All patients were referred to surgery because of pain, whereas one of them described recurrent episodes of small bowel obstruction. The median hernia defect measured 25 mm ((IQR 21-40), median mesh diameter was 10 cm (IQR 10-12.5) and median operative time was 137 min (IQR 133-174). No intraoperative complication occurred. Postoperatively, one patient developed a pneumonia, which required antibiotics. Length of hospital stay was 4.0 days (IQR 3.0-7.7). Six months after surgery, neither recurrence nor chronic pain were recorded. Conclusions: Robotics in abdominal wall hernia surgery remains a matter of debate, despite a growing interest from the surgical community. In our reported experience with flank hernias, we found the robotic-assisted approach to be safe and feasible for the treatment of this uncommon clinical entity.

show abstract