Comparison of outcome after mesh-only repair, laparoscopic component separation, and open component separation

Winnie M.Y. Tong, William Hope, David W. Overby, Charles Hultman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Component separation (CS) has been advocated as the technique of choice to reconstruct complex abdominal hernia defects, especially in the setting of gross contamination. However, open CS was reported to have relatively high incidences of wound complications. Minimally invasive approaches to CS were proposed by several surgeons to reduce wound morbidity. To date, there are limited comparative data between minimally invasive CS (MICS) versus open CS. In this article, we reviewed existing literature on open CS versus MICS with respect to their recurrence and complication rates. Our analysis appeared to show that MICS has comparable recurrence and complication rates relative to open CS although our analysis had several limitations. To demonstrate the management of complications after MICS, we reported our experience of using MICS to repair a recurrent incisional hernia in a 63-year-old man after a perforated ulcer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)551-556
Number of pages6
JournalAnnals of plastic surgery
Volume66
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Abdominal Hernia
Recurrence
Wounds and Injuries
Ulcer
Morbidity
Incidence
Incisional Hernia
Surgeons

Keywords

  • Component separation
  • laparoscopy
  • ventral hernia repair

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Comparison of outcome after mesh-only repair, laparoscopic component separation, and open component separation. / Tong, Winnie M.Y.; Hope, William; Overby, David W.; Hultman, Charles.

In: Annals of plastic surgery, Vol. 66, No. 5, 01.05.2011, p. 551-556.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tong, Winnie M.Y. ; Hope, William ; Overby, David W. ; Hultman, Charles. / Comparison of outcome after mesh-only repair, laparoscopic component separation, and open component separation. In: Annals of plastic surgery. 2011 ; Vol. 66, No. 5. pp. 551-556.
@article{99342a011ce147d789f729fb7fa38192,
title = "Comparison of outcome after mesh-only repair, laparoscopic component separation, and open component separation",
abstract = "Component separation (CS) has been advocated as the technique of choice to reconstruct complex abdominal hernia defects, especially in the setting of gross contamination. However, open CS was reported to have relatively high incidences of wound complications. Minimally invasive approaches to CS were proposed by several surgeons to reduce wound morbidity. To date, there are limited comparative data between minimally invasive CS (MICS) versus open CS. In this article, we reviewed existing literature on open CS versus MICS with respect to their recurrence and complication rates. Our analysis appeared to show that MICS has comparable recurrence and complication rates relative to open CS although our analysis had several limitations. To demonstrate the management of complications after MICS, we reported our experience of using MICS to repair a recurrent incisional hernia in a 63-year-old man after a perforated ulcer.",
keywords = "Component separation, laparoscopy, ventral hernia repair",
author = "Tong, {Winnie M.Y.} and William Hope and Overby, {David W.} and Charles Hultman",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/SAP.0b013e31820b3c91",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "551--556",
journal = "Annals of Plastic Surgery",
issn = "0148-7043",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of outcome after mesh-only repair, laparoscopic component separation, and open component separation

AU - Tong, Winnie M.Y.

AU - Hope, William

AU - Overby, David W.

AU - Hultman, Charles

PY - 2011/5/1

Y1 - 2011/5/1

N2 - Component separation (CS) has been advocated as the technique of choice to reconstruct complex abdominal hernia defects, especially in the setting of gross contamination. However, open CS was reported to have relatively high incidences of wound complications. Minimally invasive approaches to CS were proposed by several surgeons to reduce wound morbidity. To date, there are limited comparative data between minimally invasive CS (MICS) versus open CS. In this article, we reviewed existing literature on open CS versus MICS with respect to their recurrence and complication rates. Our analysis appeared to show that MICS has comparable recurrence and complication rates relative to open CS although our analysis had several limitations. To demonstrate the management of complications after MICS, we reported our experience of using MICS to repair a recurrent incisional hernia in a 63-year-old man after a perforated ulcer.

AB - Component separation (CS) has been advocated as the technique of choice to reconstruct complex abdominal hernia defects, especially in the setting of gross contamination. However, open CS was reported to have relatively high incidences of wound complications. Minimally invasive approaches to CS were proposed by several surgeons to reduce wound morbidity. To date, there are limited comparative data between minimally invasive CS (MICS) versus open CS. In this article, we reviewed existing literature on open CS versus MICS with respect to their recurrence and complication rates. Our analysis appeared to show that MICS has comparable recurrence and complication rates relative to open CS although our analysis had several limitations. To demonstrate the management of complications after MICS, we reported our experience of using MICS to repair a recurrent incisional hernia in a 63-year-old man after a perforated ulcer.

KW - Component separation

KW - laparoscopy

KW - ventral hernia repair

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955054975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955054975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31820b3c91

DO - 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31820b3c91

M3 - Article

C2 - 21346524

AN - SCOPUS:79955054975

VL - 66

SP - 551

EP - 556

JO - Annals of Plastic Surgery

JF - Annals of Plastic Surgery

SN - 0148-7043

IS - 5

ER -