Totally extraperitoneal approach for open complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repair is typically performed via a transabdominal approach and the peritoneal cavity is opened and explored. Totally extraperitoneal ventral hernia repair (TEVHR) facilitates dissection of the hernia sac without entering the peritoneal cavity. This study evaluates our experience of TEVHR, addressing technique, decision-making, and outcomes. METHODS: This is an IRB-approved retrospective review of open TEVHR performed between January 2012 and December 2016. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, operative details, postoperative outcomes, hospital readmissions, and reoperations. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six patients underwent TEVHR (84 males, 82 females) with a mean BMI range of 30-39. Eighty-six percent of patients underwent repair for primary or first-time recurrent hernia, and 89% CDC wound class I. Median hernia defect size was 135 cm2. Hernia repair techniques included Rives-Stoppa (34%) or transversus abdominis release (57%). Median operative time was 175 min, median blood loss 100 mL, and median length of stay 4 days. There were no unplanned bowel resections or enterotomies. Four cases required intraperitoneal entry to explant prior mesh. Wound complication rate was 27%: 9% seroma drainage, 18% superficial surgical site infection (SSI), and 2% deep space SSI. Five patients (3%) required reoperation for wound or mesh complications. Over the study, four patients were hospitalized for postoperative small bowel obstruction and managed non-operatively. Of the 166 patients, 96%, 54%, and 44% were seen at 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. Recurrences were observed in 2% of patients at 12-month follow-up. One patient developed an enterocutaneous fistula 28 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: TEVHR is a safe alternative to traditional transabdominal approaches to ventral hernia repair. The extraperitoneal dissection facilitates hernia repair, avoiding peritoneal entry and adhesiolysis, resulting in decreased operative times. In our study, there was low risk for postoperative bowel obstruction and enterotomy. Future prospective studies with long-term follow-up are required to draw definitive conclusions.

A comparison of short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open emergent repair of perforated peptic ulcers.

BACKGROUND: We compared 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing emergent open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers in a large multicenter cohort. METHODS: Prospectively obtained data in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program public use files from 2010 to 2016 were reviewed. Perioperative risks and outcomes were compared in unmatched and propensity-matched groups using parametric/non-parametric statistical tests as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 4210 procedures were identified 345 (8.2%) laparoscopic and 3865 (91.8%) open. Laparoscopic repairs increased from 4.5% of 2010 cases to 11.4% of 2016 cases (p < .001). Open repair patients had more acute presentation including higher rates of ASA class, hypoalbuminemia, preoperative septic shock, dyspnea, and mechanical ventilation (all p < .01). Laparoscopic operations were longer than open procedures (p < .001). Mortality (8.5 vs. 3.5%), median length of stay (7 vs. 5 days), transfusion rates (13.7 vs. 7.0%), renal failure (3.7 vs. 1.2%), and respiratory failure (15.5 vs. 5.2%) were all worse in the unmatched open group (all p < .01). Propensity matching resulted in 342 laparoscopic and 626 open cases of similar ulcer type, demographics, ASA class, preoperative SIRS/sepsis, hypoalbuminemia, and wound class. Mortality was similar between matched groups (5.0 vs. 3.5%, p = .331). Median length of stay was longer in the open group (6 vs. 5 days, p < .001), which also had higher rates of prolonged ventilation/reintubation (9.6 vs. 5.3%, p = .019) and abdominal wall wound occurrences (6.2 vs. 2.3%, p = .042). Return to the operating room and 30-day readmissions did not differ between the matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: Emergent laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is increasingly being performed, is safe relative to open repair (in patients without preoperative septic shock), and confers a modest benefit in terms of length of stay, respiratory, and abdominal wall wound complications.

Novel Technique to Reduce the Incidence of SSI after Colorectal Surgery.

SSI is a leading cause of morbidity and increases health-care cost after colorectal operations. It is a key hospital-level patient safety indicator. Previous literature has identified perioperative risk factors associated with SSI and interventions to decrease rate of infection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of blowhole closure on the rate of superficial and deep SSI. The ACS-NSQIP database was queried for patients undergoing colectomy at the University of Kentucky from 2013 to 2016. Retrospective chart review was performed to gather demographic data and perioperative variables. Wounds left open and packed were excluded. Rates of postoperative SSI were measured between the groups. One thousand eighty-three patients undergoing elective and emergent colectomy were reviewed. Nine hundred and forty-five had closed incision and 138 had blowhole closure. Patient characteristics between the groups were well matched. Patients with a blowhole closure were more likely to have an open procedure (P = 0.037) and a higher wound class (P < 0.001). The rate of superficial and deep SSI was 9.1 per cent in patients with a closed incision and 5.1 per cent in patients with blowhole closure (P = 0.142). With adjustment for approach and wound class, blowhole closure decreased the incidence of SSI (P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in morbidity or mortality. Patients undergoing elective and emergent colectomy had decreased incidence of SSI when blowhole closure was used. Given that it does not increase resource usage and its technical ease, blowhole closure should become the standard method of surgical wound closure.

Anterior versus Posterior Component Separation: Which Is Better?

In the field of hernia surgery, there have been many advances in techniques that have provided the surgeon with a variety of options to repair the difficult abdominal wall hernia. Regardless of the technique, the ultimate goal was to provide a tension-free repair, which attempts to approximate the midline while returning abdominal wall musculature to its normal anatomic position, thus providing the patient with both a cosmetic and durable result with or without the use of a prosthetic reinforcement. Component separation techniques have been widely popularized as techniques to repair complex hernias and are frequently categorized based upon the anatomic location of the myofascial release. CSTs are generally categorized as either an anterior component separation or posterior component separation based upon the surgical approach to the abdominal wall musculature. This report objectively outlines the various techniques of component separation and specifically compares the outcomes among techniques to facilitate decision making in abdominal wall reconstruction.