repair of ventral abdominal wall hernias...scientiﬁ c american surgery 10/14 gastro repair of...

Scientifi c American Surgery DOI 10.2310/7800.2083

10/14

© 2014 Decker Intellectual Properties Inc

gastrointestinal tract and abdomen

R E P A I R O F V E N T R A L A B D O M I N A L W A L L H E R N I A S

Clayton C. Petro, MD, and Michael J. Rosen, MD, FACS*

Requiring almost 350,000 annual operations, the repair of noninguinal abdominal wall defects is one of the most com-mon procedures performed by general surgeons.1 Despite the frequency of ventral hernia repair, there is little consen-sus in the literature as to the ideal app roach for this diffi cult problem. Variability in patient comorbidities, hernia dimen-sions, wound class, prosthetic choice, and technique make standardized algorithms diffi cult to defi ne. In the past, personal recollections and single-center series were the principal data sources that surgeons relied on in choosing the optimum treatment strategy. In recent years, population-based studies have provided better data on the true failure rates associated with the various herniorrhaphies. In addi-tion to recurrence, wound morbidity has simultaneously emerged as an important outcome measure and defi nitions by the Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) have begun to standardize such benchmarks. Ultimately, future evidence will be begotten from large multi-institutional collaborations that are currently being formed. Needless to say, ventral hernia repair has grown into a complex, dynamic fi eld with exciting evolutions in technique, prosthetic choice, and patient complexity. A once oversimplifi ed topic has now become an area with more controversy and less clarity. Importantly, debate has fueled investigation and collabora-tion that hope to provide the evidence-based guidance that is desperately needed. As such, the future of ventral hernia repair is bright.

In this topic review, we describe classic operations for noninguinal abdominal wall hernias as well as newly devel-oped techniques. In the repair of abdominal wall defects, the surgeon must consider a multitude of factors to identify the appropriate surgical technique to accomplish the reconstruc-tive goals. Given that a full spectrum of patients develop hernias, it is unlikely that any single technique will be appropriate for all hernias. An individualized approach is needed to fi nd the appropriate procedure. To do this, all sur-geons must familiarize themselves with important factors such as patient comorbidities, physiologic status, defect size, available local tissue, and presence of contamination. Like-wise, an understanding of the available reconstructive tech-niques and an honest assessment of the surgeon’s ability to perform each of these techniques should guide the surgeon in establishing the most appropriate repair for the patient. A well-known surgical dictum states that when numerous different operations exist to treat the same disease, the perfect procedure does not exist. This dictum holds true for abdominal wall herniorrhaphy; as the disease is so heterogeneous, different techniques are needed to address individual patients’ needs.

Epidemiology

In the United States, approximately 1,000,000 abdominal wall herniorrhaphies are performed each year, of which 750,000 are for inguinal hernias, 166,000 for umbilical her-nias, 97,000 for incisional hernias, 25,000 for femoral hernias, and 76,000 for miscellaneous hernias.2 In 2006, the cost of 348,000 ventral hernia repairs in the United States was $3.2 billion, and a recent market analysis predicted that hernia repair devices would be a $5.9 billion global industry by 2019.1,3 The prevalence of abdominal wall hernias is dif-fi cult to determine as the wide range of published fi gures in the literature illustrates. The major reasons for this diffi culty are (1) the lack of standardization in how ventral hernias are defi ned; (2) the inconsistency of the data sources used (which include self-reporting by patients, audits of routine physical examinations, and insurance company databases, among others); (3) the subjectivity of physical examination, even when performed by trained surgeons; and (4) the lack of long-term follow-up on all patients with previous surgery at risk for developing incisional hernias.

The incidence of an incisional hernia, for instance, depends on how the condition is defi ned. The best defi nition of incisional hernia is any abdominal wall gap, with or with-out a bulge that is perceptible on clinical examination or diagnostic imaging within 1 year after the index operation. A defi nition that requires the presence of a visible bulge will lead to underestimation of the true incidence of the condition. The reported incidence of incisional hernia after a midline laparotomy ranges from 11 to 23% and doubles if the index operation was associated with infection.4,5 Incisional hernias are most common after midline and trans-verse incisions but are also well documented after para-median, subcostal, McBurney (gridiron), and Pfannenstiel incisions.6 An analysis of 11 publications dealing with ventra l hernia incidence after various types of incisions concluded that the risk was 10.5% for midline incisions, 7.5% for transverse incisions, and 2.5% for paramedian incisions.7 A randomized controlled trial comparing midline versus transverse incisions did not fi nd a difference in analgesia use, pulmonary complications, or hernia recurrence after 1 year but did fi nd increased wound infections in the trans-verse incision group.8 Muscle-splitting incisions probably have a lower incidence of incisional hernias, but such incisions restrict access to the abdominal cavity and can potentially hinder creation of an ostomy in an emergent laparotomy. Long-term function of the abdominal core mus-culature must also be considered. Given similar recurrence rates between midline and transverse incisions, the opera-tive visualization required should dictate the choice of incision. Most incisional hernias are detected within 1 year of surgery. Clinically, separation of the wound edges by more than 12 mm or separation of the rectus muscles on a

* The authors and editors gratefully acknowledge the contribu-tions of the previous author, Karem Harth, MD, MHS, to the development and writing of this topic review.

Red text is tied to a SCORE learning objective.

Scientifi c American Surgery

10/14

gastro repair of ventral abdominal wall hernias — 2

Intuitively, patient and wound characteristics also contribute to wound morbidity after incisional hernia repair. To properly stratify patients by their risk of developing a wound complication, the VHWG was established to gener-ate uniform defi nitions and risk groups based on expert opinion. Wound morbidity, defi ned as a surgical site occur-rence (SSO), was offi cially described as an infection, seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, or enterocutaneous fi stula. Infections were further subclassifi ed into defi nitions used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): wound cellulitis, stitch abscess, and surgical site infection (SSI), which could further be broken down into superfi cial, deep, and organ space.12 The VHWG then formulated a grading system that would risk stratify patients’ risk of developing an SSO after incisional hernia repair.13 In an attempt to validate this system, we characterized wound morbidity in 299 hernia repairs at our institution and were able to consolidate the original four-tiered system into a three-tiered modifi ed VHWG Grading Scale [see Table 2]. To summarize, grade 1 patients are healthy, with a low risk of wound morbidity. Grade 2 patients have comorbidities or a history of a wound infection, and grade 3 patients have some degree of wound contamination and can be further divided into 3a (clean-contaminated), 3b (contaminated), or 3c (dirty/infected) based on CDC wound class.14

Acknowledging that hernia characteristics (i.e., width), patient comorbidities, and wound class are all important contributors to both wound morbidity and hernia recur-rence, we sought to create a simple, unifi ed classifi cation system for incisional hernias that would incorporate all of these variables. Akin to the “TNM” model for cancer staging, we created an “HPW” staging system for incisional hernias. Hernias (H) would be characterized by width (< 10 cm, 10–20 cm, ≥ 20 cm) and patient (P) comorbidities/wound (W) class summarized by our modifi ed VHWG Grading Scale (grade 1 = healthy, grade 2 = comorbid, grade 3 = contaminated). Permutations with similar complication profi les would be grouped accordingly. The result is an HPW staging system that ordinally ranks stages (I to IV) by the risk of developing an SSO and hernia recurrence [see Table 3]. This system is comprehensive, evidence based, and easy to remember and predicts both short-term (SSO) and long-term (recurrence) morbidity [see Table 4].15

In summary, a uniform classifi cation system will provide the platform for inclusion/exclusion criteria in future investigations regarding technique, prosthetic choice, and perioperative optimization. The importance of defi ning our patients in a thoughtful and consistent manner will provide meaningful outcomes research that is both widely accepted and widely applicable.

computed tomographic (CT) scan within 1 month of a lapa-rotomy were both found to be predictive of an incisional hernia.9 The male-to-female incidence ratio is 1:1, even though early evisceration is more common in males.

At present, little information is available on the risk of major complications arising from untreated noninguinal abdominal wall hernias. The main reason for this scarcity of data is that surgeons are taught, fi rst, that all hernias, even asymptomatic ones, should be repaired at diagnosis to prevent potential strangulation or bowel obstruction and, second, that herniorrhaphy becomes more diffi cult the longer the repair is delayed. As a result, it is diffi cult to fi nd a whole population in which at least some of the members do not routinely have their hernias repaired regardless of symptoms. In these circumstances, accurate estimates of the natural history of the disease are impossible to know.

Classifi cation

Unfortunately, a universal classifi cation system for abdominal wall hernias has not been accepted. The benefi ts of such a system would be uniformity between studies comparing technique and the subsequent exchange of homogeneous information. The European Hernia Society (EHS) proposed separate classifi cation schemes for primary and incisional hernias in 2009. Because of the symmetrical dimensions of primary hernias, experts agreed on a simple system, which classifi es these herniations based on diameter and location [see Table 1]. Although experts agreed on this system, it should be noted that this scheme has not been validated to show any meaningful association between subtype and outcomes.10

The EHS classifi cation system for incisional hernias was more complex, including nine potential locations on the abdominal wall, as well as length, width, and recurrent nature. Although experts agreed that there was likely a rela-tionship between width and recurrence, categories for width could not be agreed on, and cutoffs were somewhat arbi-trarily chosen. In an attempt to validate these classifi cation variables, we characterized 333 hernia patients by preopera-tive CT scan using this system. With regard to hernia recur-rence and wound morbidity, we found no association with hernia length, location, or recurrent nature. These fi ndings are corroborated by data from Chevrel and Rath.11 Interest-ingly, with width cutoffs of less than 10 cm, 10 to 20 cm, and 20 cm or greater, we identifi ed associations with hernia wound morbidity and recurrence. Therefore, width appears to be the incisional hernia dimension with the most meaningful ties to short- and long-term morbidity.

Table 1 EHS Classifi cation for Primary Ventral HerniasClassification Type Diameter (cm) Small (< 2 cm) Medium (> 2–4 cm) Large (< 4 cm)

Midline EpigastricUmbilical

Lateral SpigelianLumbar

EHS = European Hernia Society.


10/14


The major blood vessels of this superfi cial fatty layer are the superfi cial inferior and superior epigastric vessels, the inter-costal vessels, and the superfi cial circumfl ex iliac vessels (which are branches of the femoral vessels). These vessels run superfi cial to the Scarpa fascia. A clinically important matter involves the blood supply to the skin and subcutane-ous tissue overlying the rectus muscles. This superfi cial tis-sue is vascularized by branches of the epigastric perforators that pierce the anterior rectus sheath. One must be cognizant that signifi cantly devascularizing this tissue during skin fl ap formation or anterior component separation leaves the wound susceptible to necrosis, dehiscence, and infection.17

The external oblique muscle is the most superfi cial of the great fl at muscles of the abdominal wall [see Figure 2]. This muscle arises from the posterior aspects of the lower eight ribs and interdigitates with both the serratus anterior and the latissimus dorsi at its origin. The posterior portion of the external oblique muscle is oriented vertically and inserts on the crest of the ilium. The anterior portion of the muscle courses inferiorly and obliquely toward the midline and the pubis. The muscle fi bers give way to form its aponeurosis, which occurs well above the inguinal region. The obliquely arranged anterior inferior fi bers of the aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle fold back on themselves to form the inguinal ligament, which attaches laterally to the anterior superior iliac spine. In most persons, the medial insertion of the inguinal ligament is dual: one portion of the ligament inserts on the pubic tubercle and the pubic bone, whereas the other portion is fan shaped and spans the distance between the inguinal ligament proper and the pectineal line of the pubis. This fan-shaped portion of the inguinal liga-ment is called the lacunar ligament. It blends laterally with the Cooper ligament (or, to be anatomically correct, the pec-tineal ligament). The more medial fi bers of the aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle divide into a medial crus and a lateral crus to form the external or superfi cial inguinal ring, through which the spermatic cord (in females, the round ligament) and branches of the ilioinguinal and geni-tofemoral nerves pass. The rest of the medial fi bers insert into the linea alba after contributing to the anterior portion of the rectus sheath.

Beneath the external oblique muscle is the internal oblique muscle. The fi bers of the internal oblique muscle fan out following the shape of the iliac crest so that the superior fi bers course obliquely upward toward the distal ends of the lower three or four ribs, whereas the lower fi bers orient themselves inferomedially toward the pubis to run parallel to the external oblique aponeurotic fi bers. These fi bers arch

Anatomy

Anterior and lateral cutaneous branches of the ventral rami of the seventh through 12th intercostal nerves and ventral rami of the fi rst and second lumbar nerves innervate the skin of the lower anterior abdominal wall. These nerves course between the transversus abdominis and internal oblique muscles with a corresponding intercostal artery/vein and intermittently provide branches to the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Importantly, these neurovascular bun-dles continue medially and pierce the posterior rectus sheath between the aponeuroses of the internal oblique and trans-versus abdominis muscles before providing innervation to the rectus abdominis muscle [see Figure 1]. A thorough appreciation for the pathway of these nerves and vessels is critical if they are to be preserved during abdominal wall dissection, particularly during myofascial releases.16

The fi rst layers encountered beneath the skin are the Camper and Scarpa fasciae in the subcutaneous tissue. The only signifi cance of these layers is that when suffi ciently developed, they can be reapproximated to provide another layer between a repaired abdominal wall and the outside.

Table 2 VHWG Grading Scale and Modifi cationGrade Original VHWG Characteristics Modified VHWG Characteristics

1 Low risk of complications, no history of wound infection No medical comorbidities; history of wound infection or contamination

2 Smoker, obese, diabetic, immunosuppressed, COPD Smoker, obese, diabetic, COPD, previous wound infection

3 Previous wound infection, stoma present, violation of the GI tract

Presence of contamination: 3A = clean-contaminated; 3B = contaminated; 3C = dirty/contaminated

4 Infected mesh, septic dehiscence —

COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; GI = gastrointestinal; VHWG = Ventral Hernia Working Group.

Table 3 HPW Incisional Hernia Staging System

Grade

Width

< 10 cm 10–20 cm ≥ 20 cm

1 H1, P0, W0 (I) H2, P0, W0 (II) H3, P0, W0 (III)

2 H1, P1, W0 (II) H2, P1, W0 (III) H3, P1, W0 (IV)

3 H1, W1 (III) H2, W1 (III) H3, W1 (IV)

I–IV = stage; H = hernia; H1 = < 10 cm, H2 = 10–20 cm, H3 = > 20 cm; P = patient; P0 = healthy, P1 = comorbid*; W = wound; W0 = clean; W1 = contaminated.*Obese, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoker, history of wound infection.

Table 4 Associated Outcomes of HPW Incisional Hernia Staging System

Stage SSO Rate (%) Recurrence Rate (%)

I 6.7 6.7

II 12.5 11.4

III 26.4 15.2

IV 42.3 34.6

SSO = surgical site occurrence.


10/14


Linea Semilunaris

Subcutaneous Tissue

Neurovascular Bundle

External AbdominalOblique Muscle

Internal AbdominalOblique Muscle

Transversus AbdominisMuscle

Linea Alba Rectus Abdominis Muscle

Blood Vessels

Transversalis Fascia

Peritoneum

Preperitoneal Space

External Oblique MuscleInternal Oblique Muscle

TransversusAbdominis Muscle and Aponeurosis

InferiorEpigastric Vessels

TransversalisFascia

Spermatic CordSuperficialInguinalRing

ReflectedExternalObliqueAponeurosis

Figure 1 Cross-sectional anatomy of the abdominal wall. Note the medial insertion of the transversus abdominis fascia onto the posterior rectus sheath, medial to the linea semilunaris. The posterior rectus sheath only consists of fi bers from the internal oblique fascia until contribu-tions from the transversus abdominis muscle. The lateral neurovascular bundles supplying the rectus muscle travel between the internal oblique and transversus abdominis muscle and pierce the posterior rectus sheath before the insertion of the transversus abdominis fascia.

Figure 2 The great fl at muscles of the abdominal wall, depicting the relationship of the great muscles to the groin.


10/14


over the round ligament or the spermatic cord, forming the superfi cial part of the internal (deep) inguinal ring.

Beneath the internal oblique muscle is the transversus abdominis. This muscle arises from the inguinal ligament, the inner side of the iliac crest, the endoabdominal fascia, and the lower six costal cartilages and ribs, where it inter-digitates with the lateral diaphragmatic fi bers. The medial aponeurotic fi bers of the transversus abdominis contribute to the rectus sheath and insert on the pecten ossis pubis and the crest of the pubis, forming the falx inguinalis. Infre-quently, these fi bers are joined by a portion of the internal oblique aponeurosis; only when this occurs is a true con-joined tendon formed.18 Regarding its contribution to the posterior rectus sheath above the arcuate line, it is important to note that the aponeuroses of the transversus abdominis insert onto the posterior rectus sheath medially to the linea semilunaris. As such, there is a space between the linea semilunaris and the insertion of the transversus abdominis aponeuroses insertion point, where the posterior rectus sheath only consists of posterior fi bers from the internal oblique aponeuroses. It is in this space that intercostal neurovascular bundles travel and pierce the posterior rectus sheath to supply the rectus muscle. Again, understanding this subtlety is critical during myofascial dissections.16

Aponeurotic fi bers of the transversus abdominis also form the structure known as the aponeurotic arch. It is theorized that contraction of the transversus abdominis causes the arch to move downward toward the inguinal ligament, thereby constituting a form of shutter mechanism that rein-forces the weakest area of the groin when intra-abdominal pressure is raised. The area beneath the arch varies. Many authorities believe that a high arch, resulting in a larger area from which the transversus abdominis is, by defi nition, absent, is a predisposing factor for a direct inguinal hernia. The transverse aponeurotic arch is also important because the term is used by many authors to describe the medial structure that is sewn to the inguinal ligament in many of the older inguinal hernia repairs.

The rectus abdominis forms the central anchoring muscle mass of the anterior abdomen. It arises from the fi fth through seventh costal cartilages and inserts on the pubic symphysis and the pubic crest. It is innervated by the seventh through 12th intercostal nerves, which laterally pierce the aponeu-rotic sheath of the muscle. The semilunar line is the slight depression in the aponeurotic fi bers coursing toward the muscle. In a minority of persons, the small pyramidalis muscle accompanies the rectus abdominis at its insertion. This muscle arises from the pubic symphysis. It lies within the rectus sheath and tapers to attach to the linea alba, which represents the conjunction of the two rectus sheaths and is the major site of insertion for three aponeuroses from all three lateral muscle layers. The line of Douglas (i.e., the arcuate line of the rectus sheath) is formed at a variable distance between the umbilicus and the inguinal space because the fasciae of the large fl at muscles of the abdominal wall contribute their aponeuroses to the anterior surface of the muscle, leaving only transversalis fascia and underlying peritoneum to cover the posterior surface of the rectus abdominis.

The innervation of the anterior wall muscles is multifa-ceted. The seventh through 12th intercostal nerves and the

fi rst and second lumbar nerves provide most of the innerva-tion of the lateral muscles, as well as of the rectus abdominis and the overlying skin. As previously mentioned, the nerves pass anteriorly in a plane between the internal oblique muscle and the transversus abdominis, eventually piercing the lateral aspect of the rectus sheath to innervate the muscle therein. The external oblique muscle receives branches of the intercostal nerves, which penetrate the internal oblique muscle to reach it. The anterior ends of the nerves form part of the cutaneous innervation of the abdominal wall. The fi rst lumbar nerve divides into the ilioinguinal nerve and the iliohypogastric nerve [see Figure 3]. These important nerves lie in the space between the internal oblique muscle and the external oblique aponeurosis. They may divide within the psoas major or between the internal oblique muscle and the transversus abdominis. The ilioinguinal nerve may com-municate with the iliohypogastric nerve before innervating the internal oblique muscle. The ilioinguinal nerve then passes through the external inguinal ring to run parallel to the spermatic cord, whereas the iliohypogastric nerve pierces the external oblique muscle to innervate the skin above the pubis. The cremaster muscle fi bers—derived from the internal oblique muscle—are innervated by the genito-femoral nerve. Notably, there can be considerable variabilit y and overlap.

The blood supply of the lateral muscles of the anterior wall comes primarily from the lower three or four intercos-tal arteries, the deep circumfl ex iliac artery, and the lumbar arteries. The rectus abdominis has a complicated blood supply that derives from the superior epigastric artery (a terminal branch of the internal thoracic (internal mammary artery), the inferior epigastric artery (a branch of the external

Quadratus Lumborum

IliohypogastricNerve

IlioinguinalNerve

Lateral FemoralCutaneous Nerve

Femoral Branchof GenitofemoralNerve

Genitofemoral Nerve

Sympathetic Trunk

Psoas Muscle

Genital Branchof GenitofemoralNerve

Iliohypogastric Nerve

Ilioinguinal Nerve

External Spermatic Nerve

L3

Figure 3 The important nerves of the lower abdominal wall.


10/14


iliac artery), and the lower intercostal arteries. The lower intercostal arteries enter the sides of the muscle after travel-ing between the oblique muscles; the superior and the inferior epigastric arteries enter the rectus sheath and anastomose near the umbilicus. Preservation of superfi cial perforators in this region during the creation of skin fl aps for anterior component separation has been described as a way to decrease complications such as the aforementioned skin fl ap necrosis.19

The endoabdominal fascia is the deep fascia covering the internal surface of the transversus abdominis, the iliacus, the psoas major and minor, the obturator internus, and portions of the periosteum. It is a continuous sheet that extends throughout the extraperitoneal space and is some-times referred to as the wallpaper of the abdominal cavity. Commonly, the endoabdominal fascia is subclassifi ed according to the muscle being covered (e.g., iliac fascia or obturator fascia).

Between the transversalis fascia and the peritoneum is the preperitoneal space. In the midline behind the pubis, this space is known as the space of Retzius; laterally, it is referred to as the space of Bogros. The preperitoneal space is of particular importance for surgeons because several hernia repairs (see below) are performed in this area. The inferior epigastric vessels, the deep inferior epigastric vein, the iliopubic vein, the rectusial vein, the retropubic vein, the communicating rectusioepigastric vein, the internal spermatic vessels, the vas deferens, and even the inferior vena cava can all be encountered via this space.20

Choice of Prosthetic

Long-term follow-up has confi rmed the superiority of prosthetic mesh reinforcement over primary fascial closure for all but the smallest abdominal wall hernias.21,22 A multi-tude of prosthetic grafts are currently available, all with their own unique advantages and disadvantages. Most syn-thetic prosthetic grafts can be categorized as derived from polypropylene, polyester, or polytetrafl uoroethylene (PTFE). Uscher is credited with developing polypropylene mesh and introduced it in the early 1960s.23 Since its introduction, there has been an increase in use. An American population-based study of approximately 11,000 patients refl ected an increase in mesh use for hernia repair from 35% in 1987 to 65% by 1999.24 A detailed discussion comparing various prosthetic materials is beyond the scope of this topic review; however, some general statements may be made.

The use of mesh presupposes a situation in which the prosthesis can be isolated from contact with intra-abdominal viscera by one or more layers of human tissue (e.g., perito-neum, posterior rectus fascia). In situations where contact with intra-abdominal viscera cannot be avoided, a standard synthetic mesh prosthesis should not be used as it causes a signifi cant fi broblastic response and risks subsequent bowel-related complications such as erosion, chronic mesh infection, or enterocutaneous fi stula formation.25,26 Options for intraperitoneal mesh placement include a nonmesh material, such as expanded polytetrafl uoroethylene (ePTFE). Unfortunately, the absence of porosity in nonmesh pro-sthetics prevents incorporation, compels encapsulation, and often elicits an intense foreign-body reaction.27 A more

popular choice for intraperitoneal mesh placement is a dual-layer (“coated”) prosthesis, with a standard plastic mesh on the side facing the abdominal wall (to encourage an intense fi broplastic response) and an adhesion barrier of some type coating the peritoneal side. Numerous dual-sided prosthet-ics, incorporating a variety of adhesion barriers, are now available [see Table 5]. It has consistently been shown that when these materials are used, adhesions are not only less common but also less tenacious than when mesh alone is used in an intraperitoneal position.28,29 Often bowel adhe-sions can be easily wiped from the peritoneal surface of a dual-layer prosthesis with gentle blunt traction, in sharp contrast to the typically tedious and sometimes impossible dissection of bowel loops from an unprotected mesh pros-thesis placed directly on the viscera. Although all of the dual-layer prostheses currently on the market are approved for decreasing adhesions to the adhesion barrier side, no manufacturer has sought approval for complete prevention of adhesions. Consequently, the long-term effects of these less severe (but still present) adhesions are unknown. Cur-rently, a prospective multicenter randomized trial is under way to elucidate the difference in adhesion characteristics and adhesion-related complications following intraperito-neal placement of barrier-coated and uncoated synthetic mesh (clinicaltrials.gov protocol number: NCT01355939).

At present, there is some controversy regarding the weight of polypropylene mesh used in abdominal wall hernia repairs, although the controversy almost certainly applies to the other types of mesh prosthesis as well. Data from randomized stu dies indicate that use of a lightweight poly-propylene mesh compared with standard mesh results in similar long-term pain in incisional hernia repair.30 When used in the setting of inguinal hernia repair, two random-ized controlled trials have shown varied results with regard to pain control.30–32 In the randomized controlled multicenter trial for incisional hernia repair, no difference in recurrence was found at 24 months in the lightweight (17%) versus the standard (7%) mesh repair (p = .052). However, a closer look at their methodology reveals important considerations. After 24 months, there was approximately 20% loss of

Table 5 Select Commercially Available Synthetic Prostheses for Abdominal Wall Hernia Repair

Bard Composix E/X Mesh (PPL + ePTFE)Bard Dulex Mesh (dual-sided) (PPL + ePTFE)Bard Kugel Hernia Patch (PPL + ePTFE + PPL ring)Bard Ventralex (PPL + ePTFE + PPL tail)Bard Sepramesh (PPL + Seprafilm)Covidien Parietene (PPL + hydrophilic collagen)Covidien Parietex (POL + hydrophilic collagen)Ethicon Prolene Soft Mesh (PPL)Ethicon Proceed (PPL + PDS + ORC)Ethicon Ultrapro (PPL + poliglecaprone 25)Ethicon Vicryl Knitted MeshGore Soft Tissue Patch (ePTFE)Gore DualMesh (ePTFE)Gore DualMesh Plus (ePTFE + silver + chlorhexidine)Gore MycroMesh (ePTFE)Gore Infinit mesh (knitted PTFE)Atrium CQur (PPL + omega-3 fatty acid coating)

ePTFE = expanded polytetrafl uoroethylene; ORC = oxidized regenerated cellulose; POL = polyester; PPL = polypropylene.


10/14


follow-up for each lightweight and standard mesh group, which may have underpowered their ability to detect a statistically signifi cant difference. Also, technical variables may have impacted the observed hernia recurrence rates, including poor cephalad mesh tissue coverage and use of absorbable sutures to secure the mesh and close the midline. Recently, we found an alarming recurrence rate of 22% in patients repaired with lightweight monofi lament polyester mesh.33 Central mesh failure was noted on reoperation in seven of eight recurrences that occurred on average 13 months after initial repair. Whether this is a function of a single prosthetic or a foreshadowing of all lightweight mesh limitations remains to be seen.

Lighter-weight mesh has several other benefi ts. Larger pore size has been affi liated with more bridging fi brosis and less foreign-body reaction.27,34 Lightweight mesh also addresses the theoretical concern about the possible carcino-genic effects of polypropylene, as has been suggested by experimental studies in rats, although it should be kept in mind that there has never been a documented case of a sar-coma developing in a human being as a result of an inguinal hernia prosthesis.35 To illustrate the difference between a lightweight mesh and a normal one, a 7.5 × 15 cm piece of polypropylene mesh (Prolene, Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, NJ) weighs about 80 g/m2, whereas a similarly sized piece of a polypropylene–poliglecaprone 25 (Monocryl, Ethicon, Inc.) lightweight mesh (UltraPro, Ethicon, Inc.) weighs less than 30 g/m2 after absorption of the poliglecaprone 25 component.

North American surgeons have been slow to accept the use of lightweight mesh for inguinal hernia repair, fearing a higher recurrence rate.30 Many also have some concerns about possible bias in the data, noting that the research sup-porting the use of lightweight mesh has been almost exclu-sively funded by industry. Nevertheless, the randomized trials mentioned earlier cannot be entirely discounted. Most likely, lightweight mesh will have a role in abdominal wall reconstruction in appropriately selected patients. Although the limits of this mesh are currently being evaluated in several long-term studies, several comments can be made regarding our experience. In instances where myofascial coverage of the mesh cannot be achieved, or the abdominal wall and muscle is signifi cantly attenuated, we chose to use a heavyweight mesh to help prevent signifi cant bulging or eventrations after repair. Conversely, we prefer the use of lightweight mesh for ostomy reinforcement to theoretically decrease the chance of mesh erosion into the bowel.

The potential for mesh infection is also a topic with signifi cant research in hernia surgery, particularly as mesh infection has been diagnosed as late as 39 months following implantation.36 Inherent mesh characteristics can infl uence the likelihood of mesh infection and the ability to treat this complication. The hydrophobicity, porosity, and weave characteristics are all important factors that affect the out-comes of mesh sepsis. Although some macroporous mesh (polypropylene, polyester) infections can be treated with local measures, it is very rare to salvage an infected micro-porous (PTFE) prosthetic. Several nonrandomized studies have eva luated risk factors for SSI as they relate to different mesh morphologies in the setting of laparoscopic or open incisional hernia repair. Although not initially planning to investigate infection, some studies have found greater

potential for infection with ePTFE mesh compared with lower rates with monofi lament polypropylene mesh.36,37 Polyester-based materials have varied results in the literatur e, with some studies showing acceptable rates of infection.38–40 To elucidate favorable synthetic mesh characteristics in regard to bacterial clearance, animal studies have been done to demonstrate clearance of infection. Several authors have demonstrated that multifi lament, coated, antiadhesive barriers and laminar, antimicrobial-impregnated meshes decreased bacterial clearance rates compared with monofi la-ment, unprotected equivalents.41–43 Macroporosity has also been demonstrated to improve bacterial clearance.44 These data led us to use monofi lament polypropylene in almost all circumstances.

The quest for the perfect mesh has driven the introduction of a wide variety of synthetic meshes into the market since the 1960s. More recently, one of the fastest growing markets for hernia repair is that for prosthetics derived from animal or human tissue called biologics [see Table 6]. The wide-spread use of these grafts in abdominal wall reconstruction has resulted in close to 400 million dollars spent on biologic grafts in the United States in 2007. The fear of potential com-plications associated with synthetic mesh such as chronic infection, bowel erosion, enterocutaneous fi stula formation, and reoperation have driven the appeal of these expensive alternatives.

The sources of biologic grafts (human, porcine, bovine), their processing techniques (cross-linked and non–cross-linked), and their sterilizing techniques (radiation, ethylene oxide gas sterilization, or nonsterilization) are widely vari-able. Theoretically, collagen matrices or bioscaffolds provide the platform for tissue integration and collagen regenera-tion, allowing the original material to biodegrade over time. Integration portends collagen ingrowth and neovasculariza-tion, potentially allowing the delivery of macrophages and antibiotics to resist bacterial proliferation. Ideally, these slowly absorbable “natural” materials would allow for her-nia repair in the presence of contamination without the fear of developing a dreaded prosthetic mesh infection. Unfortu-nately, the evidence endorsing these claims is minimal, and research has mostly been limited to clean cases. Still, the sequelae of infected synthetic mesh can be so devastating and expensive that the absence of alternatives in the pres-ence of contamination may justify their enormous cost. Interestingly, in a survey of 215 surgeons who use biologic mesh, there was statistically signifi cant variability regarding indications for biologic mesh usage in regard to wound class.45 The lack of evidence-based guidance, however, pre-vents meaningful conjecture as to whether biologic mesh is being under- or overused.

Newer data regarding biologic mesh have started to accrue. In vivo analysis has demonstrated that cross-linking is associated with macrophage activation, increased cytokin e expression, pronounced infl ammatory response, foreign-body reaction, encapsulation, and poor tissue integration.46,47 Clinically, Shah and colleagues reported increased infection and explantation rates of cross-linked biologics, although non–cross-linked mesh demonstrated a higher recurrence rate (29% versus 20%).48 Diaz-Siso and colleagues reported an 8% recurrence rate in 40 patients using non–cross-linked


10/14


mesh, with a mean follow-up for 40 months.49 At our institu-tion, patients repaired with biologic mesh in the presence of contamination had a hernia recurrence rate of 31% (40 of 128) after a mean follow-up of 22 months.50 A prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial (Repair of Infected and Con-taminated Hernias [RICH] Study) demonstrated a 28% recurrence rate in 80 patients followed for 2 years.51 Although no defi nitive appraisal of biologic mesh can be made at this time, concerns regarding the durability and the true nature of “biologic” behavior certainly warrant further study.

More recently, newer absorbable synthetics that do not biodegrade for several months have been introduced into the market and proposed as less costly alternatives to biologic grafts. Clinical trials are currently under way to characterize these potential alternatives (clinicaltrials.gov protocol number: NCT01794338).

Future investigation will no doubt need to clarify the role of all prosthetic material. Remembering that all synthetics have variable abilities to clear a bacterial load and that mesh location may impact ingrowth, bacterial clearance, and, ultimately, durability, thoughtful studies will need to be designed to answer these questions. The number of vari-ables inherent to hernia repair—patient comorbidities, her-nia size, contamination, and technique—underscores the complexity in answering a question regarding the ideal prosthetic choice.

Incisional Hernia Repair

Incisional hernias occur as a complication of previous surgery. As noted, their incidence depends on how they are defi ned [see Epidemiology, above]. In the literature, the incidence of incisional hernia ranges from 3 to 12% of all laparotomy incisions and largely depends on several under-lying patient characteristics.6,52 Notably, postoperative wound infections result in a much higher incidence of incisional hernia formation.

The root cause of incisional hernia is undoubtedly multi-factorial. Technical factors such as slippage of knots, suture fractures, excessive tension, or rapidly absorbable sutures can result in incisional hernia formation.53 However, certain patients with collagen metabolism disorders are also prone to incisional hernia formation. In particular, patients with aortic aneurysms and diverticular disease likely have systemic dis orders of collagen metabolism [see Table 7]. Nev-ertheless, the importance of careful attention to technical detail in the closure of any abdominal incision should not be minimized.

Surgeons’ practices in closing laparotomies tend to be far more dependent on tradition and often lack high-quality level I scientifi c evidence.54 We do know that generally a monofi lament suture material should be chosen due to higher rates of SSI with the use of multifi lament material.55–59 To prevent insecure knots, self-locking or anchoring knots should be used to overcome this relative drawback of mono-fi lament suture.60 Regarding absorbable versus nonabsorb-able suture, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating different midline closure techniques concluded that nonabsorbable suture in a continuous fashion led to lower rates of incisional hernia.54 A follow-up meta-analysis with similar criteria found no difference in hernia recurrence between slowly absorbable suture and nonabsorbable suture.36,37 This study, however, found higher rates of suture-related sinus drainage and pain in the nonabsorbable group and found no difference in hernia recurrence when continuous versus interrupted techniques were compared.

Table 6 Commercially Available Biologic Prostheses Approved for Abdominal Wall Hernia RepairBiologic

MeshUS

Approval ManufacturerList Price* (US$/cm2) Source Cross-linking Sterilization

Surgisis 1999 Cook 18.00 Porcine SIS No EO

Tutopatch 2000 Tutogen Medical/Bard Unavailable Bovine pericardium No Gamma irradiation

Permacol 2000 TSL → Covidien 21.00 Porcine dermis Diisocyanate Gamma irradiation

Alloderm 2001 LifeCell 32.00 Human dermis No Gamma irradiation

Peri-Guard 2002 Synovis Unavailable Bovine pericardium Glutaraldehyde Liquid alcohol

SurgiMend 2002 TEI Biosciences Inc. 22.00 Fetal bovine dermis No EO

Veritas 2003 Synovis 20.00 Bovine pericardium No E-beam

Xenmatrix 2003 Bard/Davol Inc. 27.36 Porcine dermis No E-beam

Allomax 2006 Bard/Davol Inc 32.50 Human dermis No Gamma irradiation

CollaMend 2006 Bard/Davol Inc. 18.00 Porcine dermis EDAC EO

Strattice 2007 LifeCell 28.00 Porcine dermis No E-beam

FlexHD 2008 MTF — Ethicon 30.00 Human dermis No Proprietary

EDAC = 1-ethyl-3-[3-dimethylaminopropyl]carbodiimide hydrochloride; EO = ethylene oxide; SIS = small intestinal submucosa.*Prices are as of January 2010. Pricing may vary based on institutional contracts and quantity of annual sales.

Table 7 Causes of Incisional HerniasTechnicalPatient relatedWound relatedGeneticMolecular


10/14


The most recent randomized controlled trial eva l uating interrupted rapidly absorbable suture with continuous slowly absorbing suture (polydioxanone [PDS], Ethicon, Inc., and MonoPlus, B. Braun, Germany) was unable to detect a difference in hernia recurrence between the groups, although it appeared that PDS had the least overall rates of recurrence.8

The suture length (SL) to wound length (WL) ratio has been identifi ed as an important parameter in preventing incisional hernias. Prospective randomized studies have consistently identifi ed an SL to WL ratio of less than 4 as a signifi cant predictor of herniation.61–64 This ratio can be achieved with large stitches (≥ 1 cm) from the wound edge or small stitches placed at closer intervals. Counter to tradi-tional teachings that advocate 1 cm fascial bites, smaller stitches (5 to 8 mm) have been associated with lower wound dehiscence (0 versus 0.3%), SSI (5.2 versus 10.2%), and inci-sional hernia (5.6 versus 18.0%) rates.61 The weakness in larger stitches is likely related to the suture cutting through or compressing soft tissue (muscle and subcuticular fat), allowing for necrosis, laxity, and separation of the aponeu-rotic edges.65,66 The wound necrosis also serves as a harbin-ger for infection, further contributing to potential dehiscence and, ultimately, herniation.

Various patient-related risk factors for incisional hernia have been identifi ed [see Table 8].67,68 Although some contro-versy remains, the current consensus is that there appears to be an association between these comorbid conditions and the incidence of incisional hernia. The type of wound incurred also plays a role [see Epidemiology, above].

Over longer periods, the incidence of incisional hernia recurrence increases, with the majority developing in the fi rst 4 years after the sentinel operation.5 It is anticipated that as the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques increases, the incidence of incisional hernia will drop. Hernias developing within 10 and 12 mm port sites are well documented; hernias in 5 mm port incisions are rare. At present, long-term data on the incidence and natural history of port-site hernias are lacking.69

Genetic factors are important as well: familial predis-position to incisional hernia has long been recognized as

contributory by surgeons caring for patients with this condition. An increased incidence of incisional herniation in patients with certain connective tissue diseases (e.g., osteo-genesis imperfecta, Marfan syndrome, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome) has been documented. Finally, the molecular details of incisional hernia causation are now beginning to be appreciated. Type 1 to type 3 collagen imbalance, abnor-mal matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) expression, and growth factor relations are among the molecular-level processes that are currently under intense scrutiny by the scientifi c community with regard to the etiology of incisional hernia.

Not every patient who presents to a surgeon with an inci-sional hernia is necessarily a candidate for surgical repair. There are three indications for operation: (1) a hernia that is symptomatic, causing pain, discomfort, or changes in bowel habits; (2) a hernia resulting in an unsightly bulge that affects the patient’s quality of life; and (3) a hernia that poses a signifi cant risk of bowel obstruction (e.g., a large hernia with a narrow neck). However, the natural history of slow, continued growth of incisional hernias attributable to increased intra-abdominal pressure should be taken into consideration. In young patients with moderate-size hernias, a nonoperative approach can result in a more complex reconstruction in the future if the hernia becomes larger and more symptomatic. Conversely, patients with massive hernias in the presence of contamination or in patients who have multiple comorbidities can sometimes be so complex that the risk of an operation outweighs the benefi ts of a repair. We liken these “stage 4” hernias to an advanced metastatic “stage 4” cancer, where palliative measures may be more appropriate. If nothing else, properly identifying high-risk patients allows for frank discussions regarding long-term expectations in terms of morbidity and mortality.

The repair of incisional hernias is often more complicated than inguinal repair for several reasons. By defi nition, all incisional hernias are reoperative cases, demanding careful adhesiolysis and delineation of the anatomy. Additionally, it is important that the patient and the surgeon have a clear understanding of the goals of the procedure. For all ventral hernias, the surgeon must reduce the hernia contents into the abdominal cavity and prevent future migration and recurrent herniation. This can be performed by simply patching a defect with prosthetic material or can similarly be accomplished by reconstructing a functional dynamic abdominal wall via medialization of the rectus muscles with potential prosthetic reinforcement.

The importance of reconstructing the linea alba and rectus medialization has been an area of active investigation. Con-ceptually, reconstitution of the midline restores the medial insertion point for lateral abdominal wall musculature and returns the rectus muscles to their original anatomic posi-tion. The clinical benefi ts of this reconstruction, however, have not been clearly elucidated. We recently showed that reconstruction of the midline causes hypertrophy (or atro-phy reversal) for lateral and rectus muscles as demonstrated by CT scan compared with patients who underwent a lapa-roscopic bridge repair.70 Correlation with improved core function and/or quality of life, however, has actually been poorly studied. Shestak and colleagues used a dynamometer to measure improved rectus muscle function (“sit-up”

Table 8 Comorbid Factors Associated with Incisional Hernia

Male sexOld ageMorbid obesityAbdominal distentionCigarette smokingPulmonary diseaseMechanical ventilationType 2 diabetes mellitusOral anticoagulantsMalnourishmentHypoalbuminemiaAnemia/transfusionMalignancyJaundiceCorticosteroid therapyChemotherapyRadiation therapyRenal failure


10/14


strength) after an anterior component separation with resto-ration of the midline in two patients.71 Our group repeated this study in 13 patients undergoing a posterior component separation and showed improvement in rectus function by every measure as well as quality of life.72 Unfortunately, there is currently no formalized methodology for measuring lateral abdominal wall musculature. This will be an impor-tant area of future investigation to measure the sequelae of various myofascial releases that are growing in popularity.

Operative Techniques

primary repair

Historically, primary suture repair was the procedure of choice for most incisional hernias; prosthetic material was reserved for particularly diffi cult cases as a result of the perceived risks of this material. In the latter part of the 20th century, large population-based studies changed this way of thinking, revealing that primary suture repair was associ-ated with a much higher recurrence rate than most surgeons would have assumed (25 to 55%).73 Studies comparing primary suture with prosthetic repair showed that the recurrence rate was dramatically lower with the latter.21 In a randomized controlled study from the Netherlands, even small incisional hernias (< 10 cm2) had a recurrence rate of 67% when primary suture repair was employed.22 Addition-ally, a recent Cochrane review of available randomized trials with a minimum of 1-year follow-up showed that suture repair had a recurrence risk of 85% greater compared with mesh repair.74

The role of primary suture repair only remains for the smallest of primary hernias (< 2 cm). As described by Mayo, a transverse closure is preferable to avoid perpendicular tension on the suture line and take advantage of the longi-tudinal compliance of the linea alba.75 The transverse closure is fashioned by suturing a free edge 1 to 1.5 inches from the opposing free edge (“vest-over-pants” manner) with perma-nent suture using horizontal mattress stiches.76 Classically, the free edge can be secured with a running absorbable suture. In elective cases of small primary defects, recurrence rates as low as 5.4% have been reported with 24 to 70 months of follow-up.77,78

prosthetic repair: mesh placement

The use of prosthetic material to reduce tension in ventral hernia repair was fi rst described in the 1950s.23 Since its introduction, inclusion of mesh in ventral hernia repair has unquestionably reduced the recurrence rate. With the addition of synthetic prosthetics to the surgeon’s armamen-tarium, the debate for the ideal surgical approach for placing mesh continues unanswered. Although each approach has its ardent supporters, there are few data carefully evaluating each approach in appropriately designed comparative trials. Given the lack of defi nitive data, it is diffi cult to provide a clear, concise recommendation as to the ideal approach. However, certain general guidelines can be stated. Basically, three options exist for mesh placement: as an overlay (onla y), as a bridge secured to the fascial edges (inlay), or as an underlay (sublay) in either a retrorectus, preperitoneal, or intraperitoneal position [see Figure 4].

Figure 4 Incisional hernia repair. Depicted are potential positions for placement of a prosthesis for repair of ventral abdominal wall defects.

Onlay

A mesh overlay (onlay) may be placed on top of any of a variety of simple repairs. Although some series have reported that this approach yields acceptable results in selected patients, most surgeons feel that it offers little

Transversus AbdominisRelease (TAR)

Transversus AbdominisReleased

TransversusAbdominis

Intact

Overlay

Inlay

Underlay

Retrorectus

Posterior sheath and peritoneum can beapproximated and closed with suture

PeritoneumMesh

PreperitonealMesh Placement

Posterior Rectus and Peritoneum Layer

Severed Nerve

IntermuscularMesh Placement


10/14


advantage over the simple repair that the prosthesis overlies and that it is typically associated with a similarly disap-pointing recurrence rate of up to 25%.73,79 Additional disad-vantages of placing prosthetic material in this position are its close proximity to the skin with higher potential for exposure following a wound infection and the wide skin undermining needed to achieve broad coverage.80 Wound complications are estimated to be between 4 and 26% using this approach secondary to the creation of skin fl aps necessary to secure the mesh.6 Proponents of this technique claim an advantage of the mesh not being placed in direct contact with the abdominal viscera. However, if the midline fascial closure breaks down, the bowel will interact with an often unprotected macroporous mesh. Retrorectus and preperitoneal mesh (“sublay”) placement likewise benefi t from bilaminar fascial coverage without direct exposure to the viscera.

Inlay

Prosthetic inlay (bridging) repair became popular in the 1990s, in keeping with the tension-free ideal for inguinal herniorrhaphy. The principle underlying this technique is that for a prosthetic repair to be truly tension free, the defect should be bridged. Unfortunately, the abdominal wall likely experiences different forces during activity than the groin. In fact, a true tension-free repair might not be ideal in the anterior abdominal wall. Given that contraction of the rectus and lateral abdominal wall muscles that are not joined at the linea alba results in lateral displacement, a constant force of separation is placed on the prosthetic. Coupled with the incidence of some shrinkage of most prosthetics, this has resulted in a predictably high recurrence rate at the mesh–native tissue interface.81,82 Following a systematic review of 119 studies on ventral hernia repair, the inlay technique was found to have the highest reported rate of recurrence, largely attributed to poor mesh fi xation and inadequate lateral overlap.82 The recurrence rate is especially high in obese patients and greater with increasing hernia size. In a study from the Netherlands, the recurrence rate even with mesh repairs (mostly onlay and inlay) was 32% for large defects and 17% for small (< 10 cm2) defects.22

Retrorectus (“Sublay”)

Retrorectus or sublay repair is characterized by the place-ment of a large prosthesis in the space between the rectus muscles and the posterior rectus sheath superiorly or the transversalis fascia and peritoneum inferior to the arcuate line. Originally described as an approach to repair compli-cated groin hernias, the technique was promulgated by French surgeons Jean Rives and René Stoppa in the 1970s as a method to address large incisional hernias. Following Stoppa’s English manuscript in 1989 and a publication of 30 successful retrorectus repairs by American surgeon George Wantz in 1991, the technique (often referred to as the Rives-Stoppa-Wantz repair) has become increasingly popular [see Figure 5].83–85 At least 32 reports in 12 countries have consis-tently demonstrated acceptable recurrence (0 to 32%) and morbidity rates [see Table 9]. The benefi ts of mesh sublay are (1) giant prosthetic reinforcement of the visceral sac with (2) bilaminar fascial coverage of the mesh so as not to expose the viscera directly to the prosthetic in a (3) well-vascularized plane. Finally, (4) reconstruction of the midline is also

achieved, allowing for the aforementioned benefi ts of rectus medialization. Importantly, the technique obviates the need for skin fl aps and their associated wound morbidity. Because it has proven so successful, it is now being increas-ingly used to repair smaller defects. Sublay prosthetic repair is currently considered the most effective conventional inci-sional hernia repair and is therefore the one against which all other procedures are measured.

There are single-center series with evidence of improved outcomes using this technique.86 For example, in a Finnish study of 84 consecutive patients treated with a retromuscu-lar polypropylene mesh repair and followed for 3 years, the recurrence rate was 5%. In a separate US study, no recurrences were reported in 102 patients after 28 months of follow-up.87 A 2006 study from Sweden confi rmed the superiority of this operation, reporting a 7.3% recurrence rate for sublay prosthetic repair, compared with 19.3% for onlay mesh repair and 29.1% for suture repair.88 Sublay prosthetic repair has been successfully employed to treat massive hernias with substantial loss of domain.89 A retro-spective review from the Mayo Clinic evaluated their experience with a modi fi ed Rives-Stoppa technique using prosthetic mesh in complex incisional hernia repair over a 13-year period.90 With a median follow-up of 59 months and 254 patients, their overall hernia recurrence rate was 5%, with most hernias being detected within 12 months of repair.

Underlay: Laparoscopic

Although intraperitoneal mesh placement can be per-formed during an open approach, it is most commonly done during laparoscopic repair. LeBlanc and Booth were the fi rst to describe successful laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in 1993.91 Several technical benefi ts are ascribed to a laparo-scopic approach, including the opportunity to evaluate the entire abdominal wall for other smaller, Swiss cheese–like defects that may otherwise be missed and allowing for wide underlay mesh placement while avoiding large tissue dis-section and the associated wound morbidity. Studies with varied design methodologies have compared a laparoscopic approach with an open approach on several important outcome parameters, including wound morbidity, mesh infections, hernia recurrence, and hospital length of stay.

One of the largest series evaluating the safety and effi cacy of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair was reported in 2003.92 In this 10-year study, the authors reported a 3.6% conversion rate from laparoscopic repair to open repair, an average length of stay of 2.3 days (0 to 33 days), and an overall com-plication rate of 13%, with an overall infection rate of 1.8% (including wounds and mesh infection). Other important complications reported included bowel or bladder injury (1.7%), prolonged ileus (3%), prolonged seroma (2.6%), and prolonged pain (1.6%). Following an average 20-month follow-up (range 0 to 96 months), they reported a 4.7% hernia recurrence rate. Important factors associated with their recurrences included larger hernias, increased opera-tive times, a history of previous hernia repairs, and postop-erative complications. Indeed, Heniford and colleagues reported an increased recurrence rate with larger hernias fi xed laparoscopically (184 cm2 versus 124 cm2).92 A more recent prospective randomized study of open versus laparo-scopic incisional hernia repair supported this study with similar fi ndings, including improved rates of complications,


10/14


c

Incision made to developplane with Kittner downto peritoneum.

Access to Peritoneum

Perforating Nervesto Rectus

Posterior Rectus Fascia

Peritoneum

Edge where posterior rectuswas incised to get into peritoneum

Posterior RectusFascia andPeritoneum

Peritoneum

d

Surgeon’s View of Right Side Following Laparotomy

Caudal

RectusFibers

Bowel

Left Side Down

PeritoneumTAIAO

EAO

Skin

R

Cross-sectional View

Rectus Abdominis Muscle

L

*Incision made to access and develop retrorectus plane. Extend access cephalad and caudal.

Incise*Cephalad

Linea Alba

Peritoneum

a

Posterior portion of rectus now visible

Perforating Nervesto Rectus

Posterior Rectus Sheathand Peritoneum Down

b

Nerves

Figure 5 Incisional hernia repair. Illustrated is a retromuscular approach. (a) The anterior rectus sheath has already been incised, rotated mediall y, and closed in the midline. The space beneath the rectus abdominis is being developed. Dissection should continue to the lateral edge of the poste-rior rectus sheath, but care should be taken to prevent injury to the neurovascular bundles; denervation or abdominal wall necrosis is possible if these bundles are injured. (b) The prosthesis is prepared with U-shaped sutures. (c) A suture passer is used to push the two tails of each U stitch through separate musculofascial sites. However, the two tails exit through the same skin incision; this eventually allows the prosthesis to be fi rmly secured deep in the pocket. The sutures are tied above the skin, and the knot is secured down to the fascial level. The suture is cut under tension so that the tails will retract back into the skin incision, which is then closed. If the fl aps permit, the sutures can be tied in the subcutane-ous tissue and not passed through the skin. The disadvantage of this latter approach is that there are likely to be more problems with seromas because of the more extensive dissection. (d) A penetrating towel clip is used to release the skin dimples created by the gathering of subcutaneous tissue when the full-thickness sutures are tied. This measure prevents a potentially permanent deformity. It is important to inspect the sutures to confi rm that they have not been disrupted. EAO = external abdominal oblique; IAO = internal abdominal oblique; TA = transversus abdominus.


10/14


decreased hospital length of stay, and a quicker return to work in the laparoscopic group.93 Given similar patient characteristics and an average defect size of approximately 9 to 10 cm, the authors noted a decrease in postoperative complications (16% versus 29%), including decreased

wound complications (1.1% versus 8.2%), for the laparo-scopic group. Hospital length of stay (2.7 versus 9.9 days), rates of complications (16% versus 29%), and quicker return to work (13 versus 25 days) were signifi cantly decreased in the laparoscopic group. Hernia recurrences were similar at

Table 9 Reports of Retrorectus Hernia RepairStudy Year N Number of SSO or SSI (%) Mesh Excision, n (%)

Stoppa83 1989 368 16/NA (12) 0

Wantz84 1991 30 NR 0

Rives81 1992 258 20/NA (7.7) NR

Amid et al162 1994 54 NR NR

Liakakos et al163 1994 102 NR NR

McLanahan et al164 1997 86 16/NA (18) NR

Schumpelick et al81 1999 81 2/NA (2.5) 2 (2.5)

Luijendijk et al21 2000 84 3/NA (4) 0

Martin-Duce et al165 2001 152 17/NA (11) 7 (4.6)

Bauer et al166 2002 57 2/NA (3.5) 2 (3.5)*

Flament81 2002 693 17/NA (2.5) 1 (0.001)†

Ferranti et al167 2003 35 5/NA (14.2) 1 (2.8)‡

Langer et al168 2003 155 NR NR

Sriussadaporn et al169 2003 9 NR 0

Petersen et al170 2004 175 14/NA (8) 3 (1.7)§

Kingsnorth et al89 2004 33 NR 1 (3.0)

Paajanen and Laine171 2005 84 13/5 (15, 6) 1 (1.2)¶

Novitsky et al95 2006 128 3/NA (2.3) 1 (0.01)||

Israelsson et al88 2006 228 NR NR

Lomanto et al172 2006 50 6/3 (12, 6) 2 (4)

Yaghoobi Notash et al173 2007 86 14/13 (16, 15) 1 (1.2)

Iqbal et al90 2007 254 33/10 (13, 4) 5 (2.0)#

Berry et al174 2007 47 12/4 (25.5, 8.5)** 0

Williams et al175 2008 115 27/6 (23.5, 5) 3 (3)

Wheeler et al176 2009 90 9/6 (10, 6.7) 5 (5.6)††

Manigrasso et al177 2009 30 9/5 (30, 17) NR

Abdollahi et al178 2010 312 28/7 (9, 2.2) 1 (0.003)

Mehrabi et al179 2010 176 8/5 (4.5, 2.8) 2 (1.1)

Forte et al180 2011 246 12/8 (4.9, 3.3) NR

Fei181 2012 26 5/1 (19, 3.8)§§ NR

Maman et al182 2012 89 8/4 (9.0, 4.5) 3 (3.4)

Novitsky et al183 2012 42 10/10 (23.8) 0

Strambu et al184 2013 45 3/NA (2.2) 0

Schroeder et al185 2013 93 6/0 (6.5) 0

NA = not available; NR = not reported; SSI = surgical site infection; SSO = surgical site occurrence.* – 2 – both ePTFE mesh.† – 1 – polyester.‡ – 1 – polypropylene.§ – 3 – all ePTFE.¶ – 1 – partial mesh excision.|| – 1 – partial mesh excision – lightweight polypropylene.# – 5 – all mesh removed within 30 d of operation after deep SSI.** – all had a concurrent panniculectomy.†† – 5 – all partial excision of polyester.§§ – concurrent intraperitoneal mesh.


10/14


approximately 2% after an average 24-month (range 16 to 15 months) follow-up in each group.

Other studies have also described benefi ts similar to those of a laparoscopic approach for ventral hernia repair but point toward a need to standardize issues related to patient selection. A recent meta-analysis summarized the results of fi ve randomized controlled trials comparing open versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.94 This study supported the associated decreased length of stay and decreased rates of complications reported by other studies. However, the authors were unable to fi nd decreases in operative time, pain, and recurrence between the two groups. An important contri butor to this lack of difference was attributed to the heterogeneity that existed across the various study method-ologies. This resulted from the lack of double-blinded ran-domized trials, patient selection factors such as the varied hernia sizes included across studies, and the varied open techniques being compared. This subsequently underscores the need to clarify these important variables within the con-text of a well-defi ned multicenter trial. Furthermore, there are still areas of signifi cant controversy that require further well-controlled trials, such as the method of securing the mesh in place (sutures, tacks, fi brin glue, or a combination), the best approach to address postoperative pain related to mesh fi xation techniques, and the management of seromas.

A laparoscopic approach might have distinct advantages over an open ventral hernia repair for obese patients. As obesity has been identifi ed as a risk factor for wound infec-tions and recurrence in open surgery, studies have investi-gated the safety and effi cacy of laparoscopy for this group of patients.95,96 Although comparable decreased rates of com-plications such as wound and mesh infections are reported in obese patients, it is unclear if the same benefi t of decreased recurrence rates applies to this population. A multi-institutional case series of 901 laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs compared outcomes for patients with a body mass index (BMI) above 40 versus those with a BMI less than 40.96 Although similar improved rates of conversion to open repair (≈ 2.5%) and mesh infections (≈ 1%) were found between the two groups, the rates of recurrence were higher in the obese group (BMI ≥ 40; 8.3 versus 2.9%) and had an associated fourfold risk after a 19-month follow-up. Although this rate of 8% at 19 months might be acceptable relative to an open approach, it is important that obese patients understand that their rates of recurrence following laparoscopic repair may differ from those of their less obese counterparts. Several issues further complicate the decision to perform surgery in this select group of patients, such as the timing of gastric bypass surgery in relation to ventral hernia repair and the indications for panniculectomy. Although some small studies have attempted to evaluate this question, there are no high-quality studies available to guide answers to these complex problems.

Although a perfect case match is diffi cult to achieve, it appears that outcomes after laparoscopic repair are at least equivalent to those after open techniques. Importantly, mortality from a missed enterotomy was identifi ed as being more likely in multiply recurrent hernias, and in our experi-ence, recurrent incisional hernias were more likely to recur when fi xed laparoscopically.97–99 Due to the aforementioned benefi ts of midline reconstruction, which are not achieved

laparoscopically, our use of laparoscopic repairs is limited to hernias less than 8 cm or complex/comorbid patients unable to tolerate an open repair. Some have described lap-aroscopic defect closure above mesh underlay as an adjunct to the traditional repair.100–103 Although this does not appear to affect recurrence rates, seroma formation is potentially decreased and midline reconstitution is achieved, although often at the cost of increased pain. Future studies will need to investigate whether benefi ts of this supplement exist.

Component Separations

traditional (“anterior”)

Patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction for massive defects each require individualized preparation and consideration prior to surgery. Physiologic changes occur in both the abdominal and the thoracic cavities following defi nitive closure of these large defects. In addition to the general preoperative screening, each patient should be assessed for pulmonary status and the potential for return to routine daily activities. Additionally, smoking status is critical as patients who smoke are at signifi cantly higher risk for wound complications. Since its original description in 1990, component separation has undergone several adapta-tions. We describe the traditional open approach and two newer techniques to achieving a more minimally invasive separation of components.

A limitation to the classic Rives-Stoppa-Wants retrorectus repair is that the retrorectus dissection is limited laterally by the linea semilunaris. For larger hernias that require addi-tional mesh overlap as well as myofascial advancement for closure under physiologic tension, a component separation must be considered. Originally described by Ramirez and colleagues in 1990, as much as 10 cm of unilateral medial fascial advancement could be achieved by incising the exter-nal oblique aponeurosis lateral to the linea semilunaris—coined as a “component separation.”104 Reinforcement has been described with onlay, sublay, and underlay mesh place-ment.105 The Achilles heel of the operation—as previously alluded to—lies in the need to create large skin fl aps to access the external oblique muscle lateral to the linea semilunaris. Wound necrosis, not surprisingly, is a frequent sequela.

In an effort to avoid the signifi cant tissue trauma and the large open surface areas created following the open compo-nent separation technique, endoscopic approaches have been described.106–109 This minimizes the lipocutaneous fl aps created in the open approach and can be used in conjunction with a planned laparotomy. Adaptations from its original approach have been made over time. This technique main-tains the same principles as the open approach, which is to achieve medialization of the abdominal wall through lateral release of the external abdominal oblique fascia. Medial advancement, however, is not as signifi cant in patients undergoing endoscopic release due to fi xation by the subcu-taneous tissue.108 Furthermore, medial advancement in the xiphoid or suprapubic areas can be diffi cult to obtain using this technique.110

As somewhat of a compromise between the aforemen-tioned techniques of “anterior” component separation, approaches known as “periumbilical perforator sparing” and “modifi ed minimally invasive” component separation have been described. Although details are beyond the scope


10/14


of this text, suffi ce it to say that both approaches aim to preserve some of the periumbilical perforators that supply the subcutaneous tissue above rectus muscles, thereby attempting to minimize the wound morbidity associated with large skin fl aps. Importantly, data supporting these techniques have cited reduced wound complications, particularly infection.17,111

posterior component separation

In addition to the traditional anterior component separa-tion, other supplements to the traditional retrorectus repair have been developed to provide additional myofascial advancement. The chief advantage of these techniques, in contrast to an anterior component separation, is to complete-ly obviate the need for skin fl aps or tunnels necessary to access the external oblique muscle. Rather than release the myofascial external oblique, other fascial layers can be incised to allow for medial advancement.

When the retrorectus space is matured to the linea semi-lunaris, the original Rives-Stoppa-Wantz dissection is con-sidered complete. At this point, if additional advancement is required, Ramirez and colleagues described use of anterior component separation for additional advancement, as previ-ously described.104 However, the lateral posterior rectus sheath at the linea semilunaris can be reincised just medial to the laterally perforating neurovascular bundles. Given the more medial insertion of the transversus abdominis muscle onto the posterior rectus sheath [see Anatomy, above], reincising the posterior rectus sheath just medial to the neurovascular bundles allows access to the space above the transversus abdominis muscle and below the internal oblique muscle. At this point, two types of “posterior” com-ponent separation can be completed. An intramuscular dis-section matures the plane between transversus and internal oblique muscles. Unfortunately, neurovascular bundles that travel within this space are often sacrifi ced with lateral dissection. Furthermore, intramuscular dissection does not allow for release of one of the lateral abdominal wall muscles and therefore inhibits medial fascial advancement. Alternatively, our preference after posterior component sep-aration is to perform a transversus abdominis muscle release (TAR). Immediately after reincision of the lateral posterior rectus sheath, the underlying transversus abdominis muscle is revealed. At this point, the transversus abdominis muscle can be separated from underlying peritoneum and transver-salis fascia and peritoneum. The preperitoneal space can then be developed laterally beneath the transversus abdom-inis muscle and above the peritoneum/transversalis fascia that is now contiguous exclusively with the posterior rectus sheath. This preperitoneal plane can be matured all the way to the retroperitoneum and the psoas muscle, allowing for incredible medial advancement of the posterior rectus sheath as well as a large space for mesh reinforcement with wide overlap. The remaining anterior fascia also benefi ts from signifi cant medial advancement owing to division of the transversus abdominis muscle, whose vector of force is directly perpendicular to the midline, opposing apposition of the reconstituted linea alba. Importantly, neurovascular bundles traveling in the transversus plane are preserved, preventing denervation and/or defunctionalization of the rectus muscles. With posterior component separation as an adjunct to retrorectus repair, the aforementioned benefi ts of

mesh sublay are maintained: giant prosthetic reinforcement of the visceral sac, bilaminar fascial coverage of the pros-thetic without direct exposure of the prosthetic to the viscera, reconstruction of the linea alba, and maintenance of the neurovascular integrity of the abdominal wall.

Selected Operative Techniques

open retrorectus repair (rives-stoppa-wantz)

Step 1: Incision

The initial incision is typically midline and should remove all old scar tissue that might compromise subsequent wound healing. In patients with a large pannus, concurrent panniculectomy should be avoided due to the increased likelihood of wound morbidity.112 Some authors advocate remaining in the extraperitoneal space throughout the dis-section. This provides the distinct advantage of avoiding potential bowel complications; however, it can be a very tedious and diffi cult dissection plane, especially in large her-nia sacs and complicated defects. It is our preference to enter the peritoneal cavity and perform a complete adhesiolysis to identify all defects and mobilize the entire abdominal wall. The abdominal cavity is typically entered most safely in the subxiphoid midline above the original scar.

Step 2: Entering the Retrorectus Plane

Several options exist for entering the correct plane in the lateral abdominal wall. One technique involves maintaining a preperitoneal dissection. This is similar to the groin dissec-tion, but along the anterior abdominal wall, the peritoneum can be densely invested in the posterior rectus sheath, making this very diffi cult. Alternatively, the posterior rectus sheath can be entered at the linea alba. Graspers are placed on the linea alba, and the posterior rectus sheath is incised just off the midline. This release is completed throughout the length of the incision and at least 5 cm beyond the defect in a cephalad-caudad orientation. The dissection is then car-ried laterally deep to the rectus muscle above the posterior rectus sheath. Below the arcuate line, this is above the trans-versalis fascia and peritoneum. The dissection is continued laterally to the linea semilunaris at the edge of the rectus muscle. In routine hernias, the rectus muscle is typically anywhere from 5 to 10 cm in width. This provides ample overlap of the mesh [see Figure 6].

Step 2b: Supplemental Posterior Component Separation and TAR

In larger or multiply recurrent hernias, there is often atrophy, or loss of the rectus muscle, and this retrorectus space does not provide adequate mesh overlap. In these circumstances, several options exist. The lateral abdominal compartment can be accessed in either the intramuscular or preperitoneal plane. The intramuscular plane can be reached by incising the lateral border of the posterior rectus sheath just medial to the linea semilunaris. The plane between the transversus abdominis and the internal oblique can be car-ried far laterally to obtain substantially more mesh overlap. One of the drawbacks of this approach is that the perforat-ing nerves to the rectus muscle can be damaged, rendering it nonfunctional. In addition, the intercostal vessels travel within this intramuscular plane.


10/14


Rectus Sheath


Posterior Rectus Sheath

Incision of Posterior

a

Anterior Rectus Sheath

Posterior Rectus SheathLinea Semiluraris


Laterally Perforating Nerves

Posterior Rectus Sheath

Dissection of Retromuscular Space

b

Figure 6 (a) Incising the posterior rectus sheath just lateral to the linea alba to access the retrorectus space. (b) Devel-opment of the retrorectus space laterally to the linea semilunaris. Neurovascular bundles can be seen perforating the poste-rior rectus sheath just medial to the linea semilunaris.

Our preferred approach attempts to maintain the neuro-vascular integrity of the abdominal wall while still achieving wide lateral dissection for mesh overlap and myofascial release to gain medial advancement. When the retrorectus space is matured laterally to the linea semilunaris, the neurovascular bundles can be visualized piercing the poste-rior rectus sheath. The posterior rectus sheath can then be reincised just medial to the perforating bundles to reveal the underlying transversus abdominis muscle (recall that the transversus abdominis muscle inserts medially onto the pos-terior rectus sheath [see Anatomy, above]) [see Figure 7]. Once

exposed, the transversus abdominis muscle can then be isolated from the underlying transversalis fascia and perito-neum. The preperitoneal plane between the incised trans-versus abdominis muscle and the peritoneum/transversalis fascia can then be matured laterally as far back as the psoas muscle in the retroperitoneum [Figure 8].

Step 3: Reapproximating the Posterior Rectus Sheath

The posterior rectus sheath, peritoneum, and transversalis fascia are reapproximated in the midline. Recreation of this anatomic plane completely excludes the viscera from the


10/14


Anterior Rectus Sheath

Posterior Rectus SheathPeritoneum Rectus Abdominis

Muscle Reflected

Linea Semilunaris

Laterally Perforating Nerves

Exposed Belly of TransversusAbdominis Muscle

Aponeurosis of TransversusAbdominis Muscle

Incision of PosteriorRectus Sheath

Figure 7 The posterior rectus sheath is reincised just medial to the perforating neurovascular bundles to preserve their supply to the rectus muscle. Because the transversus abdominis muscle inserts onto the posterior rectus sheath medial to this point, only fi bers of the internal oblique aponeuroses constituting the posterior rectus sheath are incised, thereby exposing the transversus abdominis muscle.

mesh. Alternatively, the hernia sac, omentum, or a piece of absorbable mesh can be used to buttress this visceral sac.

Step 4: Mesh Placement

The mesh is placed in the retrorectus position. If neces-sary, the mesh can be secured to the Cooper ligament along the pelvis and placed under the xiphoid process. Several transfascial fi xation sutures are placed through puncture sites in the lateral abdominal wall. These sutures are placed through the full thickness of the abdominal wall, with the knots placed below the skin. These sutures should be placed under moderate tension. By placing these sutures under tension, when they are tied, the rectus muscle is medialized and the forces are distributed to the lateral abdominal wall away from the midline. Securing the mesh to the lateral abdominal wall under tension also allows the rectus muscle to be reapproximated over the mesh without buckling of the prosthetic material.

Step 5: Closure

After the mesh is secured, every attempt should be made to reapproximate the linea alba in the midline. This serves the functional purpose of restoring the native abdominal wall contour and function. Also, it covers the mesh to avoid

potential wound complications and subsequent mesh sepsis. When neither fascia nor soft tissue coverage can be achieved from native abdominal wall tissue, tissue fl aps should be used with the help of a plastic surgeon.

open component separation

Step 1: Incision

A long midline incision or transverse panniculectomy-type incision is made through the scar to expose the hernia. The hernia sac is dissected up to its neck, deep to the fascial edge.

Step 2: Creation of Flaps

The lipocutaneous fl ap is dissected away from the anterior sheath of the rectus abdominis and the aponeurosis of the external abdominal oblique muscle. A technique that may help decrease skin fl ap necrosis is to preserve the perium-bilical perforators by creating lipocutaneous tunnels above and below the umbilicus.17,111 There are no exact landmarks to delineate the most lateral extent of this fl ap. The surgeon must bimanually assess the rectus muscle belly. Once the lateral edge of the rectus is palpated, the dissection is carried 2 cm lateral to the linea semilunaris.


10/14


Step 3: Incising the External Oblique Muscle

The aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle is tran-sected longitudinally about 2 cm lateral to the rectus sheath, with care to avoid cutting into the linea semilunaris [see Figure 9]. Transecting the linea semilunaris will result in a full-thickness defect and a subsequent lateral hernia. If the surgeon inadvertently begins incising the external oblique muscle too medially, he or she runs the risk of potentially transecting the internal oblique fascia too. Transecting the internal oblique muscle will likely result in a lateral abdomina l wall bulge. By making the incision lateral on the external oblique muscle, the internal oblique muscle is often muscular and can be clearly delineated from the external oblique. This incision is extended cranially onto the muscu-lar components of the external abdominal oblique to about 5 to 7 cm above the costal margin and caudally to the ingui-nal ligament. The external oblique muscle is then separated from the internal oblique muscle in the avascular plane to the posterior axillary line. Similarly, this same dissection can be achieved through the suprapubic and subxiphoid lipocutaneous tunnels using lighted retractors to preserve the periumbilical vessels.

Step 4: Posterior Rectus Sheath Release

If primary closure is still not possible without undue ten-sion, 2 to 4 cm of additional length can be gained by separat-ing the posterior rectus sheath from the rectus abdominis.


Depending on the nature of the case (i.e., clean or con-taminated), synthetic or biologic mesh, either in the retrorec-tus or the intraperitoneal position, with a minimum of 3 to 4 cm of tissue-mesh overlap, can be placed. Others have described onlay positioning of the mesh after open compo-nent separation.79,113 Technically, onlay mesh positioning is easier than underlay placement. However, the mesh is then placed in the subcutaneous position, with a fairly high potential for wound breakdown and mesh exposure. Additionally, the mesh is placed below a devascularized subcutaneous fatty tissue, potentially impeding ingrowth. Particularly in the context of the periumbilical perforator–sparing technique, onlay would be impeded by the umbilica l vascular pedicle.

Preperitoneal Plane

TransversusAbdominis

Release (TAR)

Transversus AbdominisRelease (TAR)

Figure 8 Once the transversus abdominis muscle is exposed, it can be separated from the underlying peritoneum and transversalis fascia. The transversus abdominis muscle can be cut. The posterior rectus fascia is now solely continuous with the peritoneum and transversalis fascia. The space between the peritoneum/transversalis fascia and transversus abdominis muscle is the preperitoneal space that can be developed laterally to the retroperitoneum or psoas muscle.

Figure 9 Component separation repair. Depicted is the technique of component separation, as described by Ramirez and colleagues.104 (a) A longitudinal incision is made in the aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle (1) approximately 2 cm lateral to the rectus sheath, overlapping the hernia defect caudally and extending 5 to 7 cm crani-ally to the costal margin. Additional length can be gained by incising the posterior rectal sheath (2). (b) The external oblique muscle is sepa-rated from the internal oblique muscle as far laterally as possible. Care must be taken not to damage the neurovascular structures that run between the internal oblique muscle and the transversus abdominis to enter the rectus sheath on its posterolateral side (black line). A1, A2 = cut edges of the external oblique aponeurosis; B1, B2 = cut edges of the posterior rectus sheath.

b

B1

B2

A1

A2

a Branches of InferiorEpigastric Vessels

SuperficialEpigastricVessels

Anterior CutaneousBranch ofSubcostal Nerve

External Oblique Muscle

Internal Oblique Muscle

Transversus Abdominis

Rectus Abdominis2

1

B1

B2

A1 A2


10/14


Step 6: Skin Closure

Excess skin should be liberally resected. Resecting excess skin provides two distinct advantages: the most devascular-ized tissue is removed, and excess dead space is reduced. Finally, the subcutaneous space should be widely drained with the use of Jackson-Pratt drains.

endoscopic component separation

Step 1: Incision

In the setting of contaminated single-stage abdominal wall reconstruction, a standard laparotomy incision is commenced and the major infectious issues are addressed, including takedown of fi stulas or removing an infected prosthetic. The entire anterior abdominal wall is freed of adhesions, and the defect size is assessed. Those cases that will not close primarily undergo component separation. There is no absolute indication for this as all patients have a different level of compliance to their abdominal wall. A more com pliant abdominal wall will come together more easily at the midline than one that is not very compliant. Generally, good surgical judgment, coupled with realistic expectations, should guide the decision-making process.

Step 2: Initial Component Separation Incision

Once a component separation is deemed necessary, a 1 cm incision just inferior to the tip of the 11th rib is made and the external abdominal oblique is identifi ed with blunt dissec-tion and Kocher clamps. The avascular plane between the external abdominal oblique and the internal abdominal oblique is identifi ed by use of retractors. Careful identifi ca-tion of the correct anatomic plane is imperative at this junc-ture to avoid placing the dissecting balloon in the wrong plane and requiring conversion to an open procedure.

Step 3: Balloon Dissector

A bilateral inguinal hernia balloon dissector is inserted in a caudal direction toward the pubic tubercle. Under direct visualization, the balloon is infl ated and the orientation of the muscle fi bers is confi rmed.108 A structural balloon port is placed, and insuffl ation pressures of 10 to 12 mm Hg are maintained. The camera tip bluntly completes the posterior lateral dissection.

Step 4: External Oblique Release

A 5 mm port is placed in the posterior axillary line. This port needs to be quite lateral to obtain the appropriate angle to incise the external oblique fascia. Much like in the open approach, the linea semilunaris should be carefully identifi ed and avoided to prevent a lateral hernia. Anatomi-cally, the linea semilunaris is identifi ed at the junction of the external and internal oblique. Typically, scissors and cautery are used to release the external oblique fascia to the inguinal ligament.

Step 5: Cephalad Dissection

Another 5 mm port is placed medially through this inferior release to be used for the cephalad release of the external abdominal oblique fascia and muscle. The camera is now positioned in the lateral trocar. Given that the exter-nal oblique is typically quite muscular at its cephalad

extent, some form of ultrasonic dissection is helpful in main-taining hemostasis. The external oblique is then released for at least 5 to 7 cm above the costal margin. Once this is per-formed bilaterally, it completes the endoscopic component separation and the surgery.

Reinforcement or bridging of a midline defect for both the open and endoscopic approaches can be performed with mesh in the retrorectus or intra-abdominal position with lateral transfascial fi xation sutures. The exact technique regarding mesh placement is still under debate. Biologic mesh may be used in the setting of contamination. Synthetic mesh can be used for elective clean cases. If synthetic mesh needs to be placed in the intraperitoneal position, a syntheti c mesh of choice with an antiadhesive side should face the bowel.

complications

There is overwhelming proof that tension-free prosthetic repairs yield lower recurrence rates than direct suture repairs. In a Medline search for complications of incisional hernia repair, recurrence rates ranged from 31 to 63% for direct suture repairs and from 0 to 32% (mostly less than 10%) for prosthetic repairs.4,22 Although the primary adverse outcome of hernia repair is recurrence, the short-term morbidity of open hernia repair must also be assessed. In one meta-analysis, the overall complication rate after open repair was 27%.114 Ileus, postoperative pain, sepsis, fi stuliza-tion, and necrotizing fasciitis have all been documented. Tissue response, which is variable from person to person, can be so intense that the prosthetic material is deformed by contraction. Erosion can result in intestinal obstruction or fi stulization, especially if there is physical contact between the intestine and the prosthesis.115,116

Prosthesis-related infection, although it occurs less with the laparoscopic technique, remains a major problem with open incisional hernia repairs. A pooled analysis of random-ized trials comparing primary versus mesh repair of incisiona l hernias found an overall 10% infection rate.74 Prosthesis-related infection occurs in as many as 25% of repairs in some series, delays healing for prolonged periods, and is one of the most important risk factors for recurrence. Higher rates of prosthesis infection are associated with preexisting infection, ulceration of the skin overlying the hernia, obesity, incarcerated or obstructed bowel within the hernia, and perforation of the bowel during hernia repair. Seromas are common, especially when a large prosthesis is required or there has been extensive fl ap dissection of the subcutaneous layer from the fascia. Untreated seromas can become infected secondarily. Suction drains can be useful, but there is little guidance in the literature as to appropriate times for removal. Drains can both remove bacteria or function as a two-way street, allowing seeding of the mesh. Strategies for preventing and managing seromas are largely based on empirical evidence and personal opinion; objective data are virtually nonexistent. It is not always necessary to remove the mesh if infection develops. A trial of local wound care after opening the incision and débriding the infected area is warranted. Some authorities believe that ePTFE prostheses are less prone to infection; however, once infection is estab-lished, ePTFE prostheses, unlike mesh prostheses, are almost never salvageable.


10/14


laparoscopic repair

As the benefi ts of an open versus a laparoscopic approach for varied groups of patients become more defi ned, an important criterion for choosing an approach is surgeon comfort. A laparoscopic ventral hernia repair, particularly for more complex patients with multiple previous surgeries, requires a special skill set. Here we describe our technique for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

Step 1: Intraoperative Patient Preparation

Following general anesthesia, the patient should be placed in the supine position, arms abducted, with appropriate padding. Gastric and bladder decompression should be performed with the aid of a nasogastric tube and Foley catheter prior to entering the abdominal cavity. A three-way Foley catheter is used for hernias below the umbilicus to aid in identifying and potentially mobilizing the bladder for mesh placement. Appropriate antibiotic and venous antithrombosis prophylaxis should be administered.

Step 2: Gaining Access to the Abdominal Cavity

The initial access port (10 or 12 mm) can be placed in the right or left upper quadrant using an open cut-down tech-nique. A 5 mm 30° laparoscope is preferred to have adequate visualization of the anterior abdominal wall and allow place-ment through any trocar. Two to three other ports (5 mm) can be placed along the same side of the lateral abdominal wall under direct laparoscopic visualization. As a general rule, these ports should be placed as far laterally as possible to the midline defect to allow suffi cient distance to place a large piece of mesh and to allow the surgeon to work in the midline without diffi culty.

Step 3: Adhesiolysis and Defect Measurement

To avoid bowel injury, we prefer the use of sharp dissec-tion. If bleeding is encountered, liberal use of clips may be applied. If any part of this step becomes too challenging and the repair is compromised, conversion to an open repair should be considered. When working near the bladder, if there is any concern for an inadvertent bladder injury, the three-way Foley catheter can be used to fi ll the bladder and inspect for any evidence of leak. Following completion of adhesiolysis, the defect can be measured in preparation for mesh placement. Under direct laparoscopic visualization, long spinal needles are placed intra-abdominally along the edge of the hernia defect. A 15 cm ruler is then placed intra-abdominally and used to measure the hernia defect under standard insuffl ation pressures and estimate the mesh size required for repair.


Following defect measurement, the desired mesh can be cut with the goal of achieving an additional 4 to 5 cm of mesh overlap. Given its intra-abdominal position, either a dual-sided antiadhesive mesh or PTFE mesh should be used for this repair. The cephalad and caudal ends of the mesh can be marked to guide intra-abdominal orientation and placement. Nonabsorbable monofi lament or PTFE sutures are secured in four quadrants of the mesh, with the knot landing on the ingrowth-promoting side. The mesh can then

be rolled and inserted through the 10 mm trocar. Transfas-cial fi xation sutures are additionally placed with suture passers at approxi mately 5 cm intervals to further secure the mesh in place. All knots are buried in the subcutaneous space. Additionally, helical tacks are placed circumferen-tially every 5 mm to secure the mesh in place at the edges.

Step 5: Postoperative Management

Most laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs require overnight admission secondary to perioperative pain managemen t. Despite the minimally invasive nature of the procedure, most patients experience signifi cant discomfort, and the average length of hospital admission ranges from 2 to 4 days. We place an abdominal binder on all patients for 6 weeks to reduce seroma formation.

Special consideration should be given to complications associated with laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. An enter-otomy is a critical complication of a laparoscopic approach that may occur while achieving abdominal cavity access or during adhesiolysis. It has been reported to occur in 1 to 6% of cases, with greater challenges encountered in the re operative abdomen.92,97,117,118 Varied methods of accessing the abdominal cavity have been described, with no prospec-tive randomized trial evaluating the true risk associated with the several available approaches. Although there is no standard way to access the abdominal cavity prior to pneu-moperitoneum, an open cut-down technique with access under direct visualization may provide a safer route for complex patients. Extensive adhesiolysis, particularly in the patient with multiple previous surgeries and with previous intra-abdominal mesh placement, is another high-risk opportunity to inadvertently cause an enterotomy. Judicious use of cautery and opting for sharp dissection with the use of clips for hemostasis may help decrease cautery-related injury. In situations where there are dense adhesions onto intra-abdominally placed mesh, resecting the involved piece of mesh and bowel off the abdominal wall allows for safer clearance of the abdominal wall in pre paration for mesh placement. Whether an enterotomy is encountered or questioned, conversion to an open approach is a safe next step to the management of this complication as diagnosing a delayed enterotomy is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.119 The ideal surgical management of an enterotomy is controversial and in some cases may require delaying defi nitive hernia repair.

Special Circumstances

loss of domain

Loss of abdominal domain is a poorly understood pheno-menon that lacks clear defi nitions in the literature. In its simplest terms, it implies a massive hernia where the herni-ated contents have resided for so long outside the abdomi-nal cavity that they cannot simply be replaced into the peritoneum. Unfortunately, several circumstances can result in this occurrence, and each poses unique reconstructive challenges. We typically divide loss of domain hernias into those in which there is contamination or no contamination. Next, each group is subcategorized into those patients with a small hernia defect and a large mushroom cloud of hernia contents and those patients with a massive abdominal wall defect and a massive hernia sac. In the former group, the


10/14


challenges are mainly focused around having the patient accommodate the abdominal contents. In the latter group, not only must the patients be able to accommodate the abdominal contents, but the surgeon must also use various reconstructive methods to rebuild the abdominal wall.

Patients should be carefully evaluated and counseled as to the potential morbidity and mortality of these reconstructive efforts. The surgeon and the patient must set reasonable goals as to what can be accomplished. First, the abdominal contents must be returned to the abdominal cavity without causing respiratory embarrassment and hemodynamic compromise. In these circumstances, the use of progressive preoperative pneumoperitoneum and staged mesh excision has been described.120,121 After the contents are returned to the abdominal cavity, the reconstructive procedure must begin. This method should be approached with extreme caution as it can be associated with deep vein thromboem-bolism. Depending on the circumstances, a retrorectus repair, a bridged repair, component separation, and serial mesh excision may all be appropriate for massive ventral hernias.122 These procedures are technically demanding, require ample hospital resources, and likely should be attempted only in high-volume centers.

Most recently, we have worked to elucidate the physio-logic sequelae of massive ventral hernia repair. An elevation of plateau pressure by 6 mm Hg or greater after repair was found to be predictive of respiratory events (reintubation or transfer to a higher level of care), and as such, we now keep patients intubated overnight in this circumstance.123 Interest-ingly, we have found that these patients have signifi cantly improved plateau pressures by the following morning and are ready for extubation at that time. This observation has led us to develop the idea of a transient or “permissive” intra-abdominal hypertension that occurs after an elective hernia repair yet quickly resolves without signifi cant sequelae. This is possibly related to myofascial releases, which allows for accommodation of the viscera once returned to the abdomi-nal cavity. We are currently investigating this concept and look forward to sharing our fi ndings.

contaminated surgical fields

A dilemma arises when a patient has a large incisional hernia and the wound is contaminated either by skin infec-tion or by injury to the bowel during the repair at the time of adhesiolysis. In this scenario, the use of synthetic mesh has traditionally been avoided due to the concern of a chroni c mesh infection or bowel erosion leading to entero-cutaneous fi stula formation. In the past, the use of absorb-able mesh made of polyglycolic acid was recommended to prevent evisceration.124,125 This staged approach to repair a contaminated ventral hernia would result in granulation tissue development over the mesh, allowing for subsequent skin grafting. The mesh itself is absorbed in about 3 weeks, leaving no permanent foreign body to serve as a persistent focus of infection. Unfortunately, recurrence of the incisiona l hernia is nearly inevitable and leads to a multistage approach to a contaminated abdominal wall defect. Single-stage repairs for this complex problem have been reported in the literature, particularly in conjunction with the component separation technique.109,126 Currently, many surgeons prefer to use one of the newer biologic prostheses in this setting to achieve closure or add repair reinforcement. This has now

become the best indication for these very expensive materi-als. Long-term data, however, report recurrence rates as high as 31%.50,51

A better understanding of ideal mesh characteristics in terms of bacterial clearance (i.e., macroporous, monofi la-ment, uncoated polypropylene [see Choice of Prosthetic, above]) and the benefi ts of bilaminar fascial coverage in the well-vascularized sublay position has caused some investi-gators to rethink the relative contraindication of synthetic mesh in contaminated fi elds. Carbonell and colleagues recently reported 100 cases of synthetic mesh use in contaminated ventral hernia repairs, which resulted in four patients requiring mesh excision and seven recurrences with 11 months of average follow-up.127 Although infrequent, the complications of infected synthetic mesh can be devastating and incredibly expensive. Ongoing prospective studies will shed light on the real risk of prosthetic materials in contam-inated fi elds and provide the evidence-based guidance that is desperately needed.

Periumbilical Hernia Repair

Unlike an omphalocele, an umbilical hernia is covered by skin. If the defect is located to one side of the umbilicus, it is called a paraumbilical hernia (this variant is more common in adults). Umbilical hernias developing during childhood are congenital, whereas those developing during adult life are acquired. Accordingly, in adult patients, it is important to look for an underlying cause of increased intra-abdominal pressure (e.g., ascites or an intra-abdominal tumor). The differential diagnosis of an umbilical hernia includes caput medusae of varices at the umbilicus from portal hyperten-sion, a metastatic tumor deposit (the so-called Sister Mary Joseph node), a granuloma, an omphalomesenteric duct cyst, or an urachal cyst.

Management of umbilical hernia is determined by the age of the patient. The majority of hernias occurring in children younger than 2 years will heal spontaneously; therefore, watchful waiting is the rule, and only symptomatic hernias are operated on. In children older than 2 years and in adults, surgical correction is required, with the type of repair employed depending on the size of the hernia. If the defect is small (< 2 to 3 cm), a direct suture repair may be performed. For larger umbilical and paraumbilical hernias, particularly those in adults, a mesh repair is preferred. The sac is dissected away from the undersurface of the rectus and the linea alba circumferentially and then reduced into the abdomen. If the peritoneum remains intact, a mesh prosthesis may be placed in a subfascial position and secured with sutures. If the abdomen is entered, a dual-layer prosthesis with an adhesion barrier on the visceral side is recommended. In a series of 100 adult patients with a median follow-up period of 4.5 years, the recurrence rate was 11.5% for suture repairs and 0% for mesh repairs.128

A patient with an umbilical hernia and cirrhosis with or without ascites presents a challenging scenario to the general surgeon. Over a lifetime, a patient with cirrhosis has a 20% risk of developing an umbilical hernia, and in the pre-sence of ascites, the risk is as high as 40%.129,130 Knowing the surgical complications that can occur following operating on a cirrhotic patient creates a tempting scenario for delayed


10/14


umbilical hernia repair. However, with advancing disease and progression of umbilical hernia come greater risks, including incarceration, skin ulceration, perforation, leakage of ascitis, bacterial peritonitis, and possibly evisceration. Although there are certainly risks with elective repair in a patient with cirrhosis, the counterpart morbidity and mor-tality associated with emergent repair are far greater and have prompted many surgeons to consider early repair.

Aggressive control of ascites is necessary before and after surgery to ensure an improved repair. Several studies have shown that when ascites is controlled, hernia repair out-comes are improved.131 In addition to medical approaches to controlling ascites, other approaches, such as concomitant peritoneovenous shunting, transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt, or the use of a peritoneal dialysis catheter, have been described, but mainly through descriptive stud-ies.131 A recent review of 34 patients with a symptomatic umbilical hernia and cirrhosis showed greater morbidity and mortality in patients in the watchful nonoperative group compared with those who underwent elective repair with primary closure.132 Cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients under-going repair of a noninguinal hernia had similar morbidity and mortality when repair was performed electively; how-ever, higher morbidity and a nearly sevenfold mortality were observed in the cirrhotic patients when surgery was emergent.130,133 Hassan and colleagues reported elective repairs in 70 cirrhotics (average Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD] score of 18) with sublay mesh placement and only one (1.4%) recurrence with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up.134 In 30 cirrhotics (average MELD score of 12), Eker and colleagues reported two recurrences with an aver-age of 25 months of follow-up.135 Both recurrences were in cases where mesh was not used. Given the challenges of conducting a randomized study on such a small subset of patients, we advocate for early elective repair with mesh sublay when possible.

Atypical Ventral Hernias

subxiphoid (epigastric) hernia

Epigastric hernias occur through a single defect or multi-ple defects in the linea alba. These can be primary in origin, incisional hernias following an abdominal or cardiothoracic procedure, or recurrences above a previously placed mesh. A resounding theme in all “atypical ventral hernias” is the diffi culty of mesh fi xation due to adjacent bony structures. Here the costal margin and xiphoid process limit transfascial fi xation. Wide mesh overlap and appropriate fi xation are a recurrent theme for subxiphoid and other atypical types.

In most patients with the primary sort, only a single decussation of the fi bers of the linea alba is present, as opposed to the triple decussation seen in most persons.136 The reported incidence of epigastric hernia ranges from less than 1% to as high as 5%. Hernias are two to three times more common in men than in women, and 20% are multiple. Most defects are smaller than 1 cm and contain only incar-cerated preperitoneal fat, with no peritoneal sac. For this reason, they generally cannot be visualized laparoscopically. Left untreated, an epigastric hernia can become large enough to develop a peritoneal sac into which intra-abdomina l con-tents can protrude. Usually, however, the sac is wide, and

serious complications are infrequent. Symptoms, however, should prompt repair.

Our preference is to repair these defects by an open pre-peritoneal or retrorectus approach to allow for adequate mesh overlap. The upper edge of the mesh should overlap the ribs and diaphragm and should be secured fi rst with transfascial sutures just below the costal margin before securing inferior and lateral portions of the mesh. Subsequently, anterior and posterior fascial coverage are generally achieved without diffi culty.

Laparoscopic repair is also a reliable technique. Takedown of the falciform ligament is a key feature for adequate mesh overlap above the liver. Importantly, mechanical fi xation above the costal margin is highly discouraged due to poten-tial chronic pain or pericardial injury caused by tacks. Tacks can be used at the costal margin and additional transfascial suture below the costal margin when necessary. Due to the limitations of fi xation, wide mesh overlap above the liver adjacent to the diaphragm is encouraged. Glue can also be used for fi xation when necessary.110,137

supravesical hernia

Supravesical hernias develop anterior to the urinary bladder as a consequence of failure of the integrity of the transversus abdominis and the transversalis fascia, both of which insert into the Cooper ligament. The preperitoneal space is continuous with the retropubic space of Retzius, and the hernia sac protrudes into this area. The sac is directed laterally and emerges at the lateral border of the rectus abdominis in the inguinal region, the femoral region, or the obturator region. It may therefore mimic a hernia from any of these areas and sometimes is associated with a hernia from one of these regions. It is important to recognize this hernia during groin exploration for a suspected groin hernia and then to repair the defect appropriately.

Supravesical hernias can be repaired by an open retro-muscular dissection or laparoscopic transabdominal pre-peritoneal approach. Both techniques mature the space of Retzius and allow for mesh fi xation to the Cooper ligament and/or the pubic bone. Filling the bladder with saline via a three-way catheter aids its dissection.137 Wide mesh overlap is a key feature of both operations, although the need for suture fi xation in addition to tacks is controversial. Regard-less of the method for fi xation, care must be taken not to injure adjacent neurovascular structures.110

A variant of this hernia, known as an internal supravesical hernia, may also arise. These hernias are classifi ed according to whether they cross in front of, extend beside, or pass behind the bladder. Bowel symptoms predominate in patients with these defects, and urinary tract symptoms may develop in as many as 30%. Treatment is surgical and is accomplished transperitoneally via a low midline incision. The sac can usually be reduced without diffi culty, and the neck of the sac should be divided and closed.

lumbar hernia

The lumbar region is the area bounded inferiorly by the iliac crest, superiorly by the 12th rib, posteriorly by the erec-tor spinae group of muscles, and anteriorly by the posterior border of the external oblique muscle as it extends from the 12th rib to the iliac crest. There are three varieties of lumbar hernia:


10/14


1. The superior lumbar hernia of Grynfeltt. In this variety, the defect is in a space between the latissimus dorsi, the serratus posterior inferior, and the posterior border of the internal oblique muscle.

2. The inferior lumbar hernia of Petit. Here the defect is in the space bounded by the latissimus dorsi posteriorly, the iliac crest inferiorly, and the posterior border of the external oblique muscle anteriorly.

3. Secondary lumbar hernia that develops as a result of trauma—mostly surgical (e.g., renal surgery)—or infection.138 In the past, this hernia was encountered relatively frequently as a consequence of spinal tuberculosis with paraspinal abscesses but is less common today. Unlike traumatic fl ank hernias, surgical repair of these eventrations related to infection is specifi cally discouraged because the natu-ral history is more consistent with that of diastasis recti than that of a true hernia. Denervation appears to play a signifi cant role in the pathogenesis. In other words, this “hernia” refl ects a weakness in the abdominal wall more than it does a dangerous hernia defect. Therefore, appro-priate repair is commonly followed by gradual eventra-tion, which is perceived by the patient as a recurrence.

Lumbar hernias should be repaired if they are large or symptomatic. Mesh should be used for reinforcement unless there is a contraindication. The diffi culty of lumbar herni-as—akin to suprapubic and subxiphoid equivalents—lies in the ability to achieve adequate mesh overlap and fi xation next to bony prominences.137 We typically perform a retro-muscular repair with wide lateral dissection in the preperi-toneal plane to the retroperitoneum. If necessary, the mesh can be fi xed to the iliac bone with orthopedic bone fi xation devices.139 In a series of 16 patients with 16.8 months of follow-up, we had no recurrences using this technique with low wound morbidity (< 5%).140 Laparoscopic repair of lumbar hernias has also been described with increasing frequency and is proving successful.141 We reserve a laparo-scopic approach for patients unable to tolerate an open repair and for small defects at least 4 cm from the iliac crest.110 Although no direct comparative studies have been done, outcomes appear to be similar as the tenets of wide mesh overlap with adequate fi xation are maintained.

diastasis recti

In diastasis recti, the two rectus abdominis muscles are separated, and the linea alba is stretched and protrudes like a fi n. This is a common scenario after pregnancy. Because the eventration is not a true hernia, it does not carry the risk of visceral strangulation. Most patients, when reassured, will decline further surgical intervention. Still, many patients fi nd it unsightly and request treatment for cosmetic reasons. Comparison of surgical techniques and studies that address and compare conservative management with surgery are needed.142

Treatment typically involves plication of the anterior rec-tus sheaths with either nonabsorbable or slowly absorbable suture.143,144 Some patients, however, can develop a hernia within a diastasis. In this scenario, primary reapproximation of an attenuated linea alba would likely result in a recur-rence. In this situation, we advocate the use of a prosthetic reinforcement in the retromuscular position.

parastomal hernia

Parastomal hernias are one of the most common complica-tions of stoma formation. By defi nition, the creation of a stoma implies some form of an abdominal wall hernia. There is good evidence to suggest that more than 50% of patients will eventually be found to have a parastomal hernia if followed for longer than 5 years.145–147 The rate of herniation with small bowel stomas is also discouraging, although less so than that with colostomies. The results of parastomal hernia repair are particularly dismal, with recurrence being the rule rather than the exception.

Some parastomal hernias can be accounted for by poor site selection or technical errors (e.g., making the fascial opening too large or placing a stoma in an incision), but the overall incidence is too high to be explained by these causes alone. Placement of the stoma lateral to the rectus sheath is widely touted as a cause of parastomal hernia, but high-quality scientifi c evidence to support this claim is not available. Obesity, malnutrition, advanced age, collagen abnormalities, post operative sepsis, abdominal distention, constipation, obstructive uropathy, steroid use, and chronic lung disease are also contributing factors.148,149

Various techniques for stoma construction, such as extra-peritoneal tunneling, have had little impact on the incidence of parastomal hernia. Fortunately, patients tolerate these hernias well, and life-threatening complications, such as bowel obstruction and strangulation, are rare. Most, in fact, are asymptomatic. Routine repair, therefore, is not recom-mended; repair is appropriate only when there is an absolute or relative indication, such as a concurrent ventral hernia [see Table 10]. If repair is considered, patients must be informed that there is a signifi cant chance that the hernia will recur.

Three general types of parastomal hernia repairs are tra-ditionally performed: (1) fascial repair, (2) stoma relocation, and (3) prosthetic repair. Fascial repair involves local explo-ration around the stoma site, with primary closure of the defect. This approach should be considered of historical interest only because the results are so poor. We reserve this approach for elderly patients or in emergent situations as a bridge to a future defi nitive repair. Stoma relocation yields much better results and is considered the procedure of choice by many surgeons. This approach is especially appropriate for patients who have other stoma problems, such as skin excoriation or suboptimal stoma construction. Stoma relocation is a signifi cantly more invasive procedure and subjects patients to a triple threat of hernia recurrence:

Table 10 Indications for Repair of Parastomal Hernia

Absolute indicationsObstructionIncarceration with strangulation

Relative indicationsIncarcerationProlapseStenosisIntractable dermatitisDifficulty with appliance managementLarge sizeCosmesisPain


10/14


(1) at the old stoma site, (2) at the new stoma site, and (3) in the laparotomy incision used to move the stoma. Given these risks, we typically place a large sheet of mesh prophy-lactically in the retrorectus position. This mesh is keyholed around the new stoma site and is used to reinforce the old stoma site and the midline closure. In a series of 48 parasto-mal repairs using our aforementioned approach, we docu-mented fi ve (11%) recurrences, three requiring reoperation. Randomized, controlled, prospective studies with long-term follow-up have also begun to show that use of prophylactic mesh placement during stoma creation appears to signifi -cantly reduce recurrence rates (13 to 22%).150–152 Interestingly, the study by Janes and colleagues used macroporous lightweight polypropylene mesh for reinforcement with no long-term infectious complications or bowel erosion.150,151 As previously mentioned, the use of synthetic mesh in this scenario is controversial and should be done with extreme caution. Future studies elucidating the safety of synthetic mesh in contaminated fi elds will corroborate these fi ndings.

The extraperitoneal approach seems logical but can be technically demanding in that it is sometimes diffi cult to defi ne the entire extent of the hernia defect. Moreover, the considerable undermining involved can lead to seroma formation, eventual infection, or peristomal skin necrosis. As an alternative, an intra-abdominal prosthetic approach has been described that is theoretically attractive because it avoids the local complications of the extraperitoneal opera-tion and incorporates the mechanical advantage gained by placing the prosthesis on the peritoneal side of the abdomi-nal wall.153,154 Intra-abdominal pressure then serves to fuse

the prosthetic material to the abdominal wall rather than being a factor in recurrence. The use of ePTFE is particularly advantageous given the lack of ingrowth around bowel, but polypropylene or polyester barrier meshes can also be used. One technique is to slit the prosthesis and create a keyhole in its center and then suture this directly around the perito-neal side of the stoma so that it widely overlaps the hernia defect. Sugarbaker’s practice is to mobilize the bowel thor-oughly and then lateralize it with the prosthesis, in effect creating a long tunnel in addition to covering the hernia defect.154 The detractors of the intra-abdominal approach argue that the risk of complications (e.g., adhesive bowel obstruction and fi stula formation) outweighs the advantage s. The intra-abdominal approach is particularly well suited for adaptation to laparoscopic methods.155–157

spigelian hernia

A spigelian hernia, fi rst described 400 years ago by the Flemish anatomist Adriaan van den Spiegel, is a hernia through a defect in the spigelian fascia.158 Above the arcuate line, the fused internal oblique and transversus abdominus aponeuroses split to form anterior and posterior rectus sheaths, encasing the rectus muscle before reconvening at the linea alba. Below the arcuate line, all aponeuroses pass anterior to the rectus muscle. This transition abates the pos-terior rectus sheath and creates an area of weakness in the linea semilunaris, allowing for herniation.159 This region, known as the spigelian belt, is a band between the iliac crest and a line drawn 6 cm above [see Figure 10].159 A hernia sac can protrude through transversus abdominus and internal

1

UmbilicalPlane

SpigelianFascia

Semilunar Line (of Spiegel)

SpigelianHernia Belt

1

4 4

2

3

Monro Line

HesselbachTriangle Inferior

EpigastricVessels

6 cm

{

Figure 10 The spigelian hernia belt, with a diagrammatic representation of the relevant components of the anterior abdominal wall, including (1) the trans-versus abdominis, (2) the dorsal lamella of the rectus sheath (the rectus abdominis itself having been cut away), (3) the semi-circular line (of Douglas), and (4) the spigelian aponeurosis.


10/14


oblique aponeuroses with the overlying external oblique layer remaining intact, making clinical recognition of a spi-gelian hernia diffi cult. These rare hernias are being reported with increasing frequency: there are more than 100 cases in the surgical literature.

A spigelian hernia may present as a bulge lateral to the rectus. However, because many of these hernias are interpa-rietal, they may not be clinically apparent; often they are picked up incidentally during laparoscopy. A signifi cant percentage of patients present with an incarcerated or stran-gulated hernia. If such a hernia is interparietal, the diagnosis frequently is not made until a laparotomy is done for treat-ment of the acute process.

The standard treatment is operative repair.160 For open re-pairs, a transverse incision is made over the bulge. The an-terior rectus sheath is incised transversely, and the sac is dissected as far as its neck and either excised or inverted. A prosthetic reinforcement is placed in the retromuscular posi-tion. The defect is then repaired with a continuous suture of nonabsorbable material. Laparoscopic methods are increas-ingly being employed to repair spigelian hernias, with equivalent success.161

richter hernia

A Richter hernia is unique in that part of the bowel wall herniates through the defect without causing an obstruction of the associated lumen. Incarceration can potentially lead to ischemia and gangrenous bowel, and the overlying skin may be discolored. The her niated bowel wall is exposed by opening the sac, and the neck of the sac is enlarged to allow delivery of the bowel into the wound. The gangrenous patch is excised, and the bowel wall is reconstituted. The hernia is then repaired.

Financial Disclosures: Clayton C. Petro, MD, has no relevant fi nancial relationships to disclose. Michael J. Rosen, MD, FACS, receives an honorarium as a speaker for LifeCell and C. R. Bard. He also has research support from Gore. This topic review was previously authored by Karem Harth, MD, MHS, with disclosure made at the time of initial publication. This topic review has been reviewed, updated, and rereleased by the authors listed.

References

1. Poulose BK, Shelton J, Phillips S, et al. Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research. Hernia 2012;16:179–83.

2. Rutkow IM. Demographic and socioeconomic aspects of hernia repair in the United States in 2003. Surg Clin North Am 2003;83:1045–51, v–vi.

3. Hernia Repair Devices Market – Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast, 2013–2019. Available at: http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/kl98x5/hernia_repair (accessed August 6, 2014).

4. Cassar K, Munro A. Surgical treatment of incisional hernia. Br J Surg 2002;89:534–45.

5. Mudge M, Hughes LE. Incisional hernia: a 10 year prospective study of incidence and attitudes. Br J Surg 1985;72:70–1.

6. Bucknall TE, Cox PJ, Ellis H. Burst abdomen and incisional hernia: a prospective study of 1129 major laparotomies. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982;284:931–3.

7. Carlson MA, Ludwig KA, Condon RE. Ventral hernia and other complications of 1,000 midline incisions. South Med J 1995;88:450–3.

8. Seiler CM, Deckert A, Diener MK, et al. Midline versus transverse incision in major abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind equivalence trial (POVATI: ISRCTN60734227). Ann Surg 2009;249:913–20.

9. Burger JW, Lange JF, Halm JA, et al. Incisional hernia: early complication of abdominal surgery. World J Surg 2005;29:1608–13.

10. Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, et al. Classifi cation of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 2009;13:407–14.

11. Chevrel JP, Rath AM. Classifi cation of incisional hernias of the abdominal wall. Hernia 2000;4:7–11.

12. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, et al. CDC defi nitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modifi cation of CDC defi nitions of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:271–4.

13. Ventral Hernia Working Group, Breuning K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, et al. Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery 2010;148:544–58.

14. Kanters AE, Krpata DM, Blatnik JA, et al. Modifi ed hernia grading scale to stratify surgical site occurrence after open ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 2012;215:787–93.

15. Petro C, Raigani S, Criss C, et al. Apples to apples: a vali-dated staging system (I-IV) for incisional hernias [abstract]. Presented at American Hernia Society; 2014; Las Vegas.

16. Rosen MJ. Atlas of abdominal wall reconstruction. London: Saunders; 2011.

17. Ghali S, Turza KC, Baumann DP, et al. Minimally invasive component separation results in fewer wound-healing complications than open component separation for large ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 2012;214:981–9.

18. Condon RE. The anatomy of the inguinal region and its relation to groin hernia. In: Nyhus LM, editor. Hernia. 4th ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott; 1995. p. 31.

19. Sukkar SM, Dumanian GA, Szczerba SM, et al. Challeng-ing abdominal wall defects. Am J Surg 2001;181:115–21.

20. Bendavid R. The space of Bogros and the deep inguinal venous circulation. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;174:355–8.

21. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, et al. A com-parison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 2000;343:392–8.

22. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, et al. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 2004;240:578–83; discussion 583–5.

23. Usher FC. Hernia repair with Marlex mesh. An analysis of 541 cases. Arch Surg 1962;84:325–8.

24. Flum DR, Horvath K, Koepsell T. Have outcomes of inci-sional hernia repair improved with time? A population-based analysis. Ann Surg 2003;237:129–35.

25. Halm JA, de Wall LL, Steyerberg EW, et al. Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh hernia repair complicates subsequent abdominal surgery. World J Surg 2007;31:423–9; discussio n 430.

26. Losanoff JE, Richman BW, Jones JW. Entero-colocutaneous fi stula: a late consequence of polypropylene mesh abdom-inal wall repair: case report and review of the literature. Hernia 2002;6:144–7.


10/14


27. Orenstein SB, Saberski ER, Kreutzer DL, et al. Compara-tive analysis of histopathologic effects of synthetic meshes based on material, weight, and pore size in mice. J Surg Res 2012;176:423–9.

28. Byrd JF, Agee N, Nguyen PH, et al. Evaluation of compos-ite mesh for ventral hernia repair. JSLS 2011;15:298–304.

29. Jenkins ED, Yom V, Melman L, et al. Prospective evalua-tion of adhesion characteristics to intraperitoneal mesh and adhesiolysis-related complications during laparo-scopic re-exploration after prior ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2010;24:3002–7.

30. Conze J, Kingsnorth AN, Flament JB, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight composite mesh with polyester or polypropylene mesh for incisional hernia repair. Br J Surg 2005;92:1488–93.

31. Bringman S, Wollert S, Osterberg J, et al. Three-year results of a randomized clinical trial of lightweight or standard polypropylene mesh in Lichtenstein repair of primary inguinal hernia. Br J Surg 2006;93:1056–9.

32. Koch A, Bringman S, Myrelid P, et al. Randomized clinical trial of groin hernia repair with titanium-coated light-weight mesh compared with standard polypropylene mesh. Br J Surg 2008;95:1226–31.

33. Petro CC, Nahabet EH, Criss CN, et al. Central failures of lightweight monofi lament polyester mesh causing hernia recurrence: a cautionary note. Hernia 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-014-1237-5.

34. Cobb WS, Kercher KW, Heniford BT. The argument for lightweight polypropylene mesh in hernia repair. Surg Innov 2005;12:63–9.

35. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M, et al. Foreign body reaction to meshes used for the repair of abdominal wall hernias. Eur J Surg 1999;165:665–73.

36. Engelsman AF, van der Mei HC, Ploeg RJ, et al. The phe-nomenon of infection with abdominal wall reconstruction. Biomaterials 2007;28:2314–27.

37. van’t Riet M, Burger JW, Bonthuis F, et al. Prevention of adhesion formation to polypropylene mesh by collagen coating: a randomized controlled study in a rat model of ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2004;18:681–5.

38. Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, et al. Long-term compli-cations associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg 1998;133:378–82.

39. Balique JG, Benchetrit S, Bouillot JL, et al. Intraperitoneal treatment of incisional and umbilical hernias using an innovative composite mesh: four-year results of a prospec-tive multicenter clinical trial. Hernia 2005;9:68–74.

40. Rosen MJ. Polyester-based mesh for ventral hernia repair: is it safe? Am J Surg 2009;197:353–9.

41. Blatnik JA, Krpata DM, Jacobs MR, et al. In vivo analysis of the morphologic characteristics of synthetic mesh to resist MRSA adherence. J Gastrointest Surg 2012;16:2139–44.

42. Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, et al. In vitro infectability of prosthetic mesh by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Hernia 2006;10:120–4.

43. Aydinuraz K, Agalar C, Agalar F, et al. In vitro S. epider-midis and S. aureus adherence to composite and light-weight polypropylene grafts. J Surg Res 2009;157:e79–86.

44. Diaz-Godoy A, Garcia-Urena MA, Lopez-Monclus J, et al. Searching for the best polypropylene mesh to be used in bowel contamination. Hernia 2011;15:173–9.

45. Harth KC, Krpata DM, Chawla A, et al. Biologic mesh use practice patterns in abdominal wall reconstruction: a lack of consensus among surgeons. Hernia 2013;17:13–20.

46. Novitsky YW, Orenstein SB, Kreutzer DL. Comparative analysis of histopathologic responses to implanted porcine biologic meshes. Hernia 2013. DOI: 10.1007/s10029-013-1203-7.

47. Orenstein SB, Qiao Y, Klueh U, et al. Activation of human mononuclear cells by porcine biologic meshes in vitro. Hernia 2010;14:401–7.

48. Shah BC, Tiwari MM, Goede MR, et al. Not all biologics are equal! Hernia 2011;15:165–71.

49. Diaz-Siso JR, Bueno EM, Pomahac B. Abdominal wall reconstruction using a non-cross-linked porcine dermal scaffold: a follow-up study. Hernia 2013;17:37–44.

50. Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B, et al. A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and con-taminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg 2013;257:991–6.

51. Itani KM, Rosen M, Vargo D, et al. Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: the RICH Study. Surgery 2012;152:498–505.

52. Santora TA, Roslyn JJ. Incisional hernia. Surg Clin North Am 1993;73:557–70.

53. Sanders RJ, DiClementi D. Principles of abdominal wound closure. II. Prevention of wound dehiscence. Arch Surg 1977;112:1188–91.

54. Hodgson NC, Malthaner RA, Ostbye T. The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2000;231:436–42.

55. Osther PJ, Gjode P, Mortensen BB, et al. Randomized com-parison of polyglycolic acid and polyglyconate sutures for abdominal fascial closure after laparotomy in patients with suspected impaired wound healing. Br J Surg 1995;82:1080–2.

56. Osterberg B. Enclosure of bacteria within capillary multi-fi lament sutures as protection against leukocytes. Acta Chir Scand 1983;149:663–8.

57. Jenkins TP. The burst abdominal wound: a mechanical approach. Br J Surg 1976;63:873–6.

58. Ellis H, Bucknall TE, Cox PJ. Abdominal incisions and their closure. Curr Probl Surg 1985;22:1–51.

59. O’Dwyer PJ, Courtney CA. Factors involved in abdominal wall closure and subsequent incisional hernia. Surgeon 2003;1:17–22.

60. Israelsson LA, Jonsson T. Physical properties of self lock-ing and conventional surgical knots. Eur J Surg 1994;160:323–7.

61. Millbourn D, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Effect of stitch length on wound complications after closure of midline incisions: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg 2009;144:1056–9.

62. Israelsson LA, Jonsson T. Suture length to wound length ratio and healing of midline laparotomy incisions. Br J Surg 1993;80:1284–6.

63. Israelsson LA, Jonsson T. Overweight and healing of mid-line incisions: the importance of suture technique. Eur J Surg 1997;163:175–80.

64. Gruppo M, Mazzalai F, Lorenzetti R, et al. Midline abdom-inal wall incisional hernia after aortic reconstructive surgery: a prospective study. Surgery 2012;151:882–8.


10/14


65. Cengiz Y, Gislason H, Svanes K, et al. Mass closure tech-nique: an experimental study on separation of wound edge. Eur J Surg 2001;167:60–3.

66. Harlaar JJ, van Ramshorst GH, Nieuwenhuizen J, et al. Small stitches with small suture distances increase lapa-rotomy closure strength. Am J Surg 2009;198:392–5.

67. Millikan KW. Incisional hernia repair. Surg Clin North Am 2003;83:1223–34.

68. Chan G, Chan CK. A review of incisional hernia repairs: preoperative weight loss and selective use of the mesh repair. Hernia 2005;9:37–41.

69. Park AE, Roth JS, Kavic SM. Abdominal wall hernia. Curr Probl Surg 2006;43:326–75.

70. De Silva GS, Krpata DM, Hicks CW, et al. Comparative radiographic analysis of changes in the abdominal wall musculature morphology after open posterior component separation or bridging laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 2014;218:353–7.

71. Shestak KC, Edington HJ, Johnson RR. The separation of anatomic components technique for the reconstruction of massive midline abdominal wall defects: anatomy, surgi-cal technique, applications, and limitations revisited. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:731–8; quiz 739.

72. Criss CN, Petro CC, Krpata DM, et al. Functional abdomi-nal wall reconstruction improves core physiology and quality-of-life. Surgery 2014;156:176–82.

73. Korenkov M, Paul A, Sauerland S, et al. Classifi cation and surgical treatment of incisional hernia. Results of an experts’ meeting. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2001;386:65–73.

74. den Hartog D, Dur AH, Tuinebreijer WE, et al. Open surgi-cal procedures for incisional hernias. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(3):CD006438.

75. Mayo WJ. VI. An operation for the radical cure of umbili-cal hernia. Ann Surg 1901;34:276–80.

76. Grassel D, Prescher A, Fitzek S, et al. Anisotropy of human linea alba: a biomechanical study. J Surg Res 2005;124:118–25.

77. Dalenback J, Andersson C, Ribokas D, et al. Long-term follow-up after elective adult umbilical hernia repair: low recurrence rates also after non-mesh repairs. Hernia 2013;17:493–7.

78. Lau H, Patil NG. Umbilical hernia in adults. Surg Endosc 2003;17:2016–20.

79. Korenkov M, Sauerland S, Arndt M, et al. Randomized clinical trial of suture repair, polypropylene mesh or auto-dermal hernioplasty for incisional hernia. Br J Surg 2002;89:50–6.

80. Shell DHT, de la Torre J, Andrades P, et al. Open repair of ventral incisional hernias. Surg Clin North Am 2008;88:61–83, viii.

81. Jin J, Rosen MJ. Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair. Surg Clin North Am 2008;88:1083–100, viii.

82. Awad ZT, Puri V, LeBlanc K, et al. Mechanisms of ventral hernia recurrence after mesh repair and a new proposed classifi cation. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201:132–40.

83. Stoppa RE. The treatment of complicated groin and inci-sional hernias. World J Surg 1989;13:545–54.

84. Wantz GE. Incisional hernioplasty with Mersilene. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991;172:129–37.

85. Temudom T, Siadati M, Sarr MG. Repair of complex giant or recurrent ventral hernias by using tension-free intrapa-rietal prosthetic mesh (Stoppa technique): lessons learned from our initial experience (fi fty patients). Surgery 1996;120:738–43; discussion 743–4.

86. Paajanen H, Hermunen H. Long-term pain and recurrence after repair of ventral incisional hernias by open mesh: clinical and MRI study. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2004;389:366–70.

87. Millikan KW, Baptista M, Amin B, et al. Intraperitoneal underlay ventral hernia repair utilizing bilayer expanded polytetrafl uoroethylene and polypropylene mesh. Am Surg 2003;69:287–91; discussion 291–2.

88. Israelsson LA, Smedberg S, Montgomery A, et al. Inci-sional hernia repair in Sweden 2002. Hernia 2006;10:258–61.

89. Kingsnorth AN, Sivarajasingham N, Wong S, et al. Open mesh repair of incisional hernias with signifi cant loss of domain. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004;86:363–6.

90. Iqbal CW, Pham TH, Joseph A, et al. Long-term outcome of 254 complex incisional hernia repairs using the modifi e d Rives-Stoppa technique. World J Surg 2007;31:2398–404.

91. LeBlanc KA, Booth WV. Laparoscopic repair of incisional abdominal hernias using expanded polytetrafl uoroethyl-ene: preliminary fi ndings. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1993;3:39–41.

92. Heniford BT, Park A, Ramshaw BJ, et al. Laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias: nine years’ experience with 850 consecutive hernias. Ann Surg 2003;238:391–9; discussion 399–400.

93. Olmi S, Scaini A, Erba L, et al. Laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernias using an intraperitoneal onlay mesh tech-nique and a Parietex composite mesh fi xed with fi brin glue (Tissucol). Personal technique and preliminary results. Surg Endosc 2007;21:1961–4.

94. Sajid MS, Bokhari SA, Mallick AS, et al. Laparoscopic versus open repair of incisional/ventral hernia: a meta-analysis. Am J Surg 2009;197:64–72.

95. Novitsky YW, Cobb WS, Kercher KW, et al. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in obese patients: a new standard of care. Arch Surg 2006;141:57–61.

96. Tsereteli Z, Pryor BA, Heniford BT, et al. Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) in morbidly obese patients. Hernia 2008;12:233–8.

97. Rosen M, Brody F, Ponsky J, et al. Recurrence after laparo-scopic ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 2003;17:123–8.

98. Sauerland S, Walgenbach M, Habermalz B, et al. Laparo-scopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or inci-sional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(3):CD007781.

99. Moreau PE, Helmy N, Vons C. Laparoscopic treatment of incisional hernia. State of the art in 2012. J Visc Surg 2012;149(5 Suppl):e40–8.

100. Chelala E, Thoma M, Tatete B, et al. The suturing concept for laparoscopic mesh fi xation in ventral and incisional hernia repair: mid-term analysis of 400 cases. Surg Endosc 2007;21:391–5.

101. Franklin ME Jr, Gonzalez JJ Jr, Glass JL, et al. Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair: an 11-year experience. Hernia 2004;8:23–7.


10/14


102. Palanivelu C, Jani KV, Senthilnathan P, et al. Laparoscopic sutured closure with mesh reinforcement of incisional hernias. Hernia 2007;11:223–8.

103. Orenstein SB, Dumeer JL, Monteagudo J, et al. Outcomes of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with routine defect closure using “shoelacing” technique. Surg Endosc 2011;25:1452–7.

104. Ramirez OM, Ruas E, Dellon AL. “Components separa-tion” method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;86:519–26.

105. Ko JH, Wang EC, Salvay DM, et al. Abdominal wall reconstruction: lessons learned from 200 “components separation” procedures. Arch Surg 2009;144:1047–55.

106. Lowe JB, Garza JR, Bowman JL, et al. Endoscopically assisted “components separation” for closure of abdomi-nal wall defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105:720–9; quiz 730.

107. Maas SM, de Vries RS, van Goor H, et al. Endoscopically assisted “components separation technique” for the repair of complicated ventral hernias. J Am Coll Surg 2002;194:388–90.

108. Rosen MJ, Williams C, Jin J, et al. Laparoscopic versus open-component separation: a comparative analysis in a porcine model. Am J Surg 2007;194:385–9.

109. Rosen MJ, Jin J, McGee MF, et al. Laparoscopic component separation in the single-stage treatment of infected abdom-inal wall prosthetic removal. Hernia 2007;11:435–40.

110. Rosen MJ. Abdominal wall reconstruction. Surg Clin North Am 2013;93:xvii–xviii.

111. Saulis AS, Dumanian GA. Periumbilical rectus abdominis perforator preservation signifi cantly reduces superfi cial wound complications in “separation of parts” hernia repairs. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;109:2275–80; discussion 2281–2.

112. Harth KC, Blatnik JA, Rosen MJ. Optimum repair for massive ventral hernias in the morbidly obese patient—is panniculectomy helpful? Am J Surg 2011;201:396–400; dis-cussion 400.

113. DiBello JN Jr, Moore JH Jr. Sliding myofascial fl ap of the rectus abdominus muscles for the closure of recurrent ventral hernias. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996;98:464–9.

114. Goodney PP, Birkmeyer CM, Birkmeyer JD. Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repair: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 2002;137:1161–5.

115. Gray MR, Curtis JM, Elkington JS. Colovesical fi stula after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg 1994;81:1213–4.

116. Miller K, Junger W. Ileocutaneous fi stula formation fol-lowing laparoscopic polypropylene mesh hernia repair. Surg Endosc 1997;11:772–3.

117. Perrone JM, Soper NJ, Eagon JC, et al. Perioperative out-comes and complications of laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surgery 2005;138:708–15; discussion 715–6.

118. LeBlanc KA. Laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair: complications—how to avoid and handle. Hernia 2004;8:323–31.

119. LeBlanc KA, Elieson MJ, Corder JM 3rd. Enterotomy and mortality rates of laparoscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair: a review of the literature. JSLS 2007;11:408–14.

120. Dumont F, Fuks D, Verhaeghe P, et al. Progressive pneu-moperitoneum increases the length of abdominal muscles. Hernia 2009;13:183–7.

121. McAdory RS, Cobb WS, Carbonell AM. Progressive preop-erative pneumoperitoneum for hernias with loss of domain. Am Surg 2009;75:504–8; discussion 508–9.

122. Lipman J, Medalie D, Rosen MJ. Staged repair of massive incisional hernias with loss of abdominal domain: a novel approach. Am J Surg 2008;195:84–8.

123. Blatnik JA, Krpata DM, Pesa NL, et al. Predicting severe postoperative respiratory complications following abdom-inal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012;130:836–41.

124. Fabian TC, Croce MA, Pritchard FE, et al. Planned ventral hernia. Staged management for acute abdominal wall defects. Ann Surg 1994;219:643–50; discussion 651–3.

125. Jernigan TW, Fabian TC, Croce MA, et al. Staged manage-ment of giant abdominal wall defects: acute and long-term results. Ann Surg 2003;238:349–55; discussion 355–7.

126. Alaedeen DI, Lipman J, Medalie D, et al. The single-staged approach to the surgical management of abdominal wall hernias in contaminated fi elds. Hernia 2007;11:41–5.

127. Carbonell AM, Criss CN, Cobb WS, et al. Outcomes of synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 2013;217:991–8.

128. Sanjay P, Reid TD, Davies EL, et al. Retrospective com-parison of mesh and sutured repair for adult umbilical hernias. Hernia 2005;9:248–51.

129. Belghiti J, Durand F. Abdominal wall hernias in the setting of cirrhosis. Semin Liver Dis 1997;17:219–26.

130. Carbonell AM, Wolfe LG, DeMaria EJ. Poor outcomes in cirrhosis-associated hernia repair: a nationwide cohort study of 32,033 patients. Hernia 2005;9:353–7.

131. McKay A, Dixon E, Bathe O, et al. Umbilical hernia repair in the presence of cirrhosis and ascites: results of a survey and review of the literature. Hernia 2009;13:461–8.

132. Marsman HA, Heisterkamp J, Halm JA, et al. Management in patients with liver cirrhosis and an umbilical hernia. Surgery 2007;142:372–5.

133. Gray SH, Vick CC, Graham LA, et al. Umbilical hernior-rhapy in cirrhosis: improved outcomes with elective repair. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:675–81.

134. Hassan AM, Salama AF, Hamdy H, et al. Outcome of sublay mesh repair in non-complicated umbilical hernia with liver cirrhosis and ascites. Int J Surg 2014;12:181–5.

135. Eker HH, van Ramshorst GH, de Goede B, et al. A prospective study on elective umbilical hernia repair in patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites. Surgery 2011;150:542–6.

136. Askar OM. Aponeurotic hernias. Recent observations upon paraumbilical and epigastric hernias. Surg Clin North Am 1984;64:315–33.

137. Hope WW, Hooks WB 3rd. Atypical hernias: suprapubic, subxiphoid, and fl ank. Surg Clin North Am 2013;93:1135–62.

138. Sutherland RS, Gerow RR. Hernia after dorsal incision into lumbar region: a case report and review of pathogenesis and treatment. J Urol 1995;153:382–4.

139. Carbonell AM, Kercher KW, Sigmon L, et al. A novel tech-nique of lumbar hernia repair using bone anchor fi xation. Hernia 2005;9:22–5.


10/14


140. Phillips MS, Krpata DM, Blatnik JA, et al. Retromuscular preperitoneal repair of fl ank hernias. J Gastrointest Surg 2012;16:1548-53.

141. Heniford BT, Iannitti DA, Gagner M. Laparoscopic inferior and superior lumbar hernia repair. Arch Surg 1997;132:1141–4.

142. Akram J, Matzen SH. Rectus abdominis diastasis. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2014;48:163–9.

143. Nahas FX, Augusto SM, Ghelfond C. Nylon versus polydioxanone in the correction of rectus diastasis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;107:700–6.

144. Nahas FX, Augusto SM, Ghelfond C. Should diastasis recti be corrected? Aesthetic Plast Surg 1997;21:285–9.

145. Carne PW, Robertson GM, Frizelle FA. Parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 2003;90:784–93.

146. Israelsson LA. Parastomal hernias. Surg Clin North Am 2008;88:113–25, ix.

147. Rubin MS, Schoetz DJ Jr, Matthews JB. Parastomal hernia. Is stoma relocation superior to fascial repair? Arch Surg 1994;129:413–8; discussion 418–9.

148. Sugerman HJ, Kellum JM Jr, Reines HD, et al. Greater risk of incisional hernia with morbidly obese than steroid-dependent patients and low recurrence with prefascial polypropylene mesh. Am J Surg 1996;171:80–4.

149. Pearl RK. Parastomal hernias. World J Surg 1989;13:569–72.

150. Janes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Preventing parastomal hernia with a prosthetic mesh. Arch Surg 2004;139:1356–8.

151. Janes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Preventing parastomal hernia with a prosthetic mesh: a 5-year follow-up of a ran-domized study. World J Surg 2009;33:118–21; discussion 122–3.

152. Serra-Aracil X, Bombardo-Junca J, Moreno-Matias J, et al. Randomized, controlled, prospective trial of the use of a mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Ann Surg 2009;249:583–7.

153. Byers JM, Steinberg JB, Postier RG. Repair of parastomal hernias using polypropylene mesh. Arch Surg 1992;127:1246–7.

154. Sugarbaker PH. Peritoneal approach to prosthetic mesh repair of paraostomy hernias. Ann Surg 1985;201:344–6.

155. Bickel A, Shinkarevsky E, Eitan A. Laparoscopic repair of paracolostomy hernia. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 1999;9:353–5.

156. Porcheron J, Payan B, Balique JG. Mesh repair of paraco-lostomal hernia by laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 1998;12:1281.

157. Janes A, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Randomized clinical trial of the use of a prosthetic mesh to prevent parastomal hernia. Br J Surg 2004;91:280–2.

158. Spangen L. Spigelian hernia. Surg Clin North Am 1984;64:351–66.

159. Skandalakis PN, Zoras O, Skandalakis JE, et al. Spigelian hernia: surgical anatomy, embryology, and technique of repair. Am Surg 2006;72:42–8.

160. Larson DW, Farley DR. Spigelian hernias: repair and out-come for 81 patients. World J Surg 2002;26:1277–81.

161. Moreno-Egea A, Carrasco L, Girela E, et al. Open vs lapa-roscopic repair of spigelian hernia: a prospective random-ized trial. Arch Surg 2002;137:1266–8.

162. Amid PK, Shulman AG, Lichtenstein LL. Use of Marlex mesh in the repair of recurrent incisional hernia. Br J Surg 1994;81:1827.

163. Liakakos T, Karanikas I, Panagiotidis H, et al. Use of Marlex mesh in the repair of recurrent incisional hernia. Br J Surg 1994;81:248–9.

164. McLanahan D, King LT, Weems C, et al. Retrorectus pros-thetic mesh repair of midline abdominal hernia. Am J Surg 1997;173:445–9.

165. Martin-Duce A, Noguerales F, Villeta R, et al. Modifi ca-tions to Rives technique for midline incisional hernia repair. Hernia 2001;5:70–2.

166. Bauer JJ, Harris MT, Gorfi ne SR, et al. Rives-Stoppa proce-dure for repair of large incisional hernias: experience with 57 patients. Hernia 2002;6:120–3.

167. Ferranti F, Triveri P, Mancini P, et al. The treatment of large midline incisional hernias using a retromuscular prosthetic mesh (Stoppa-Rives technique). Chir Ital 2003;55:129–36.

168. Langer C, Liersch T, Kley C, et al. [Twenty-fi ve years of experience in incisional hernia surgery. A comparative ret-rospective study of 432 incisional hernia repairs]. Chirurg 2003;74:638–45.

169. Sriussadaporn S, Pak-Art R, Bunjongsat S. Immediate closure of the open abdomen with bilateral bipedicle anterior abdominal skin fl aps and subsequent retrorectus prosthetic mesh repair of the late giant ventral hernias. J Trauma 2003;54:1083–9.

170. Petersen S, Henke G, Zimmermann L, et al. Ventral rectus fascia closure on top of mesh hernia repair in the sublay technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;114:1754–60.

171. Paajanen H, Laine H. Operative treatment of massive ventral hernia using polypropylene mesh: a challenge for surgeon and anesthesiologist. Hernia 2005;9:62–7.

172. Lomanto D, Iyer SG, Shabbir A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia mesh repair: a prospective study. Surg Endosc 2006;20:1030–5.

173. Yaghoobi Notash A, Yaghoobi Notash A Jr, Seied Farshi J, et al. Outcomes of the Rives-Stoppa technique in incisional hernia repair: ten years of experience. Hernia 2007;11:25–9.

174. Berry MF, Paisley S, Low DW, et al. Repair of large complex recurrent incisional hernias with retromuscular mesh and panniculectomy. Am J Surg 2007;194:199–204.

175. Williams RF, Martin DF, Mulrooney MT, et al. Intraperito-neal modifi cation of the Rives-Stoppa repair for large incisional hernias. Hernia 2008;12:141–5.

176. Wheeler AA, Matz ST, Bachman SL, et al. Retrorectus polyester mesh repair for midline ventral hernias. Hernia 2009;13:597–603.

177. Manigrasso A, Candioli S, Arcieri S, et al. [Incisional hernia prosthetic surgery: a prospective study comparing laparo-scopic and open techniques]. G Chir 2009;30:201–14.

178. Abdollahi A, Maddah GH, Mehrabi BM, et al. Prosthetic incisional hernioplasty: clinical experience with 354 cases. Hernia 2010;14:569–73.

179. Mehrabi M, Jangjoo A, Tavoosi H, et al. Long-term outcome of Rives-Stoppa technique in complex ventral incisional hernia repair. World J Surg 2010;34:1696–701.

180. Forte A, Zullino A, Manfredelli S, et al. Incisional hernia surgery: report on 283 cases. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2011;15:644–8.


10/14


181. Fei Y. Compound repair of intraperitoneal onlay mesh associated with the sublay technique for giant lower ventral hernia. Ann Plast Surg 2012;69:192–6.

182. Maman D, Greenwald D, Kreniske J, et al. Modifi ed Rives-Stoppa technique for repair of complex incisional hernias in 59 patients. Ann Plast Surg 2012;68:190–3.

183. Novitsky YW, Elliott HL, Orenstein SB, et al. Transversus abdominis muscle release: a novel approach to posterior component separation during complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg 2012;204:709–16.

184. Strambu V, Radu P, Bratucu M, et al. Rives technique, a gold standard for incisional hernias — our experience. Chirurgia (Bucur) 2013;108:46–50.

185. Schroeder AD, Debus ES, Schroeder M, et al. Laparoscopic transperitoneal sublay mesh repair: a new technique for the cure of ventral and incisional hernias. Surg Endosc 2013;27:648–54.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Mojtaba Fayezizadeh was critical in helping review the lit-erature.Figures 1, 6, 7, and 8 Christine KenneyFigures 2, 9, 10 Alice Y. ChenFigure 3 Tom Moore

repair of ventral abdominal wall hernias...scientiﬁ c american surgery 10/14 gastro repair of...

Documents