Search

Background: From an epidemiological point of view, one third of the population in industrialized countries will undergo abdominal surgery during their lifetime. Depending on the degree of patient-related and procedure-related risks, the occurrence of incisional hernias is associated in a range of up to 30% at 2‑year follow-up and even up to 60% at 5 years. In addition to influencing comorbidities, the type of surgical approach and closure technique are of critical importance. Objective: To present a descriptive evidence-based recommendation for abdominal wall closure and prophylactic mesh augmentation. Material and methods: A concise summary was prepared incorporating the current literature and existing guidelines. Results: According to recent studies the recognized risk for the occurrence of incisional hernias in the presence of obesity and abdominal aortic diseases also applies to patients undergoing colorectal surgery and the presence of diastasis recti abdominis. Based on high-level published data, the short stitch technique for midline laparotomy in the elective setting has a high level of evidence to be a standard procedure. Patients with an increased risk profile should receive prophylactic mesh reinforcement, either onlay or sublay, in addition to the short stitch technique. In emergency laparotomy, the individual risk of infection with respect to the closure technique used must be included. Conclusion: The avoidance of incisional hernias is primarily achieved by the minimally invasive access for laparoscopy. For closure of the most commonly used midline approach, the short stitch technique and, in the case of existing risk factors, additionally mesh augmentation are recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background High-level evidence regarding the technique of abdominal wall closure for patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy is sparse. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two commonly applied abdominal wall closure strategies after primary emergency midline laparotomy. Methods/design CONTINT was a multi-center pragmatic open-label exploratory randomized controlled parallel trial. Two different abdominal wall closure strategies in patients undergoing primary midline laparotomy for an emergency surgical intervention with a suspected septic focus in the abdominal cavity were compared: the continuous, all-layer suture and the interrupted suture technique. The primary composite endpoint was burst abdomen within 30 days after surgery or incisional hernia within 12 months. As reliable data on this composite primary endpoint were not available for patients undergoing emergency surgery, it was planned to initially recruit 80 patients and conduct an interim analysis after these had completed the 12 months follow-up. Results From August 31, 2009, to June 28, 2012, 124 patients were randomized of whom 119 underwent surgery and were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principal. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between the continuous suture (C: 27.1%) and the interrupted suture group (I: 30.0%). None of the individual components of the primary endpoint (reoperation due to burst abdomen after 30 days (C: 13.5%, I: 15.1%) and reoperation due to incisional hernia (C: 3.0%, I:11.1%)) differed between groups. Time needed for fascial closure was longer in the interrupted suture group (C: 12.8 ± 4.5 min, I: 17.4 ± 6.1 min). BMI was associated with burst abdomen during the first 30 days with an OR of 1.17 (95% CI 1.04–1.32). Conclusion This RCT showed no difference between continuous suture with slowly absorbable suture versus interrupted rapidly absorbable sutures after primary emergency midline laparotomy in rates of postoperative burst abdomen and incisional hernia after one year. However, the trial was stopped after the interim analysis due to futility as there was no chance to show superiority of one suture technique.

Background: High-level evidence regarding the technique of abdominal wall closure for patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy is sparse. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two commonly applied abdominal wall closure strategies after primary emergency midline laparotomy. Methods/design: CONTINT was a multi-center pragmatic open-label exploratory randomized controlled parallel trial. Two different abdominal wall closure strategies in patients undergoing primary midline laparotomy for an emergency surgical intervention with a suspected septic focus in the abdominal cavity were compared: the continuous, all-layer suture and the interrupted suture technique. The primary composite endpoint was burst abdomen within 30 days after surgery or incisional hernia within 12 months. As reliable data on this composite primary endpoint were not available for patients undergoing emergency surgery, it was planned to initially recruit 80 patients and conduct an interim analysis after these had completed the 12 months follow-up. Results: From August 31, 2009, to June 28, 2012, 124 patients were randomized of whom 119 underwent surgery and were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principal. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between the continuous suture (C: 27.1%) and the interrupted suture group (I: 30.0%). None of the individual components of the primary endpoint (reoperation due to burst abdomen after 30 days (C: 13.5%, I: 15.1%) and reoperation due to incisional hernia (C: 3.0%, I:11.1%)) differed between groups. Time needed for fascial closure was longer in the interrupted suture group (C: 12.8 ± 4.5 min, I: 17.4 ± 6.1 min). BMI was associated with burst abdomen during the first 30 days with an OR of 1.17 (95% CI 1.04–1.32). Conclusion: This RCT showed no difference between continuous suture with slowly absorbable suture versus interrupted rapidly absorbable sutures after primary emergency midline laparotomy in rates of postoperative burst abdomen and incisional hernia after one year. However, the trial was stopped after the interim analysis due to futility as there was no chance to show superiority of one suture technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Incisional hernia (IH) is a common complication of colorectal surgery, affecting up to 30% of patients at 2 years. Given the associated morbidity and high recurrence rates after attempted repair of IH, emphasis should be placed on prevention. There is an association between surgeon volume and outcomes in hernia surgery, yet there is little evidence regarding impact of the seniority of the surgeon performing abdominal wall closure on IH rate. The aim of our study was to assess the rates of IH at 1 year following abdominal wall closure between junior and senior surgeons in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Methods: This was an exploratory analysis of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal cancer between 2014–2018 as part of the Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART), a prospective, multicentre randomised control trial comparing abdominal wall closure methods. Grade of surgeon performing abdominal closure was categorised into "trainee" and "consultant" and compared to IH rate at one year. Results: A total of 663 patients were included in this retrospective analysis of patients in the HART trial. The rate of IH in patients closed by trainees was 20%, compared to 12% in those closed by consultants (p = <0.001). When comparing closure methods, IH rates were significantly higher in the Hughes closure arm between trainees and consultants (20% vs. 12%, p = 0.032), but not high enough in the mass closure arm to reach statistical significance (21% vs. 13%, p = 0.058). On multivariate analysis, age (p = 0.036, OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00–1.04), Male sex (p = 0.049, OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.00–2.59) and closure by a trainee (p = 0.006, OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.20–2.85) were identified as risk factors for developing IH. Conclusion: Patients who undergo abdominal wall closure by a surgeon in training have an increased risk of developing IH when compared to those closed by a consultant. Further work is needed to determine the impact of supervised and unsupervised trainees on IH rates, but abdominal wall closure should be regarded as a training opportunity in its own right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abdominal compartment syndrome is a potentially life-threatening condition seen in critically ill patients, and most often caused by acute pancreatitis, postoperative abdominal vascular thrombosis or mesenteric ischemia. A decompressive laparotomy is sometimes required, often resulting in hernias, and subsequent definitive wall closure is challenging. Aim: This study aims to describe short term results after a modified Chevrel technique for midline laparotomies in patients witch abdominal hypertension. Materials and methods: We performed a modified Chevrel as an abdominal closure technique in 9 patients between January 2016 and January 2022. All patients presented varying degrees of abdominal hypertension. Results: Nine patients were treated with new technique (6 male and 3 female), all of whom had conditions that precluded unfolding the contralateral side as a means for closure. The reasons for this were diverse, including presence of ileostomies, intraabdominal drainages, Kher tubes or an inverted T scar from previous transplant. The use of mesh was initially dismissed in 8 of the patients (88,9%) because they required subsequent abdominal surgeries or active infection. None of the patients developed a hernia, although two died 6 months after the procedure. Only one patient developed bulging. A decrease in intrabdominal pressure was achieved in all patients. Conclusion: The modified Chevrel technique can be used as a closure option for midline laparotomies in cases where the entire abdominal wall cannot be used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Surgeons can reduce incisional hernia formation by adhering to standardized techniques for incisional wound closure. This is often neglected by the time a long operation is to be ended and can lead to the risk of developing an incisional hernia or a wound rupture. To address this issue, a suturing machine (Suture-TOOL) was developed for swift and standardized abdominal closure. The aim was to compare the user safety, speed, and suturing quality between Suture-TOOL and manual Needle-Driver suturing. Method: Fifteen surgeons who were specialists in surgery, urology, and gynaecology as well as surgical trainees were invited. The Suture-TOOL was presented to the surgeons who read the instructions for use before starting the test. Each surgeon closed nine 15 cm-long incisions in a human body model; six with Suture-TOOL and three with the Needle-Driver technique. Gloves were examined for puncture damage. Endpoints were suture-length/wound-length (SL/WL)-ratio, closure time, number of stitches, learning curve, and glove puncture rate. A VAS-evaluation concerning different Suture-Tool user impressions was completed. Results: A SL/WL-ratio ≥4 was 98% for Suture-TOOL versus 69% for Needle-Driver (p

Background: Incisional hernias can cause chronic pain and complications and affect quality of life. Surgical repair requires health-care resources and has a significant associated failure rate. A prospective, multicentre, single-blinded randomised controlled trial was conducted to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Hughes abdominal closure method compared with standard mass closure following surgery for colorectal cancer. The study randomised, in a 1 : 1 ratio, 802 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing surgical resection for colorectal cancer from 28 surgical departments in UK centres. Intervention: Hughes abdominal closure or standard mass closure. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year, as assessed by clinical examination. Within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analyses over 1 year were conducted from an NHS and a social care perspective. A key secondary outcome was quality of life, and other outcomes included the incidence of incisional hernias as detected by computed tomography scanning. Results: The incidence of incisional hernia at 1-year clinical examination was 50 (14.8%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 57 (17.1%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.27; p = 0.4). In year 2, the incidence of incisional hernia was 78 (28.7%) in the Hughes abdominal closure arm compared with 84 (31.8%) in the standard mass closure arm (odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.25; p = 0.43). Computed tomography scanning identified a total of 301 incisional hernias across both arms, compared with 100 identified by clinical examination at the 1-year follow-up. Computed tomography scanning missed 16 incisional hernias that were picked up by clinical examination. Hughes abdominal closure was found to be less cost-effective than standard mass closure. The mean incremental cost for patients undergoing Hughes abdominal closure was £616.45 (95% confidence interval –£699.56 to £1932.47; p = 0.3580). Quality of life did not differ significantly between the study arms at any time point. Limitations: As this was a pragmatic trial, the control arm allowed surgeon discretion in the approach to standard mass closure, introducing variability in the techniques and equipment used. Intraoperative randomisation may result in a loss of equipoise for some surgeons. Follow-up was limited to 2 years, which may not have been enough time to see a difference in the primary outcome. Conclusions: Hughes abdominal closure did not significantly reduce the incidence of incisional hernias detected by clinical examination and was less cost-effective at 1 year than standard mass closure in colorectal cancer patients. Computed tomography scanning may be more effective at identifying incisional hernias than clinical examination, but the clinical benefit of this needs further research. Future work: An extended follow-up using routinely collected NHS data sets aims to report on incisional hernia rates at 2–5 years post surgery to investigate any potential mortality benefit of the closure methods. Furthermore, the proportion of incisional hernias identified by a computed tomography scan (at 1 and 2 years post surgery), but not during clinical examination (occult hernias), proceeding to surgical repair within 3–5 years after the initial operation will be explored. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN25616490. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Purpose: The small bites (SB) technique for closure of elective midline laparotomies (EMLs) and a prophylactic mesh (PM) in high-risk patients are suggested by the guidelines to prevent incisional hernias (IHs) and fascial dehiscence (FD). Our aim was to implement a protocol combining both the techniques and to analyze its outcomes. Methods: Prospective data of all EMLs were collected for 2 years. Results were analyzed at 1 month and during follow-up. The incidence of HI and FD was compared by groups (M = Mesh vs. S = suture) and by subgroups depending on using SB. Results: A lower number of FD appeared in the M group (OR 0.0692; 95% CI 0.008–0.56; P = 0.01) in 197 operations. After a mean follow-up of 29.23 months (N = 163; min. 6 months), with a lower frequency of IH in M group (OR 0.769; 95% CI 0.65–0.91; P < 0.0001). (33) The observed differences persisted after a propensity matching score: FD (OR 0.355; 95% CI 0.255–0.494; P < 0.0001) and IH (OR 0.394; 95% CI 0.24–0.61; P < 0.0001). On comparing suturing techniques by subgroups, both mesh subgroups had better outcomes. PM was the main factor related to the reduction of IH (HR 11.794; 95% CI 4.29–32.39; P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Following the protocol using PM and SB showed a lower rate of FD and HI. A PM is safe and effective for the prevention of both HI and FD after MLE, regardless of the closure technique used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary abdominal wall closure after pediatric liver transplantation (PLT) is neither always possible nor advisable, given the graft‐recipient size discrepancy and its potential large‐for‐size scenario. Our objective was to report the experience accumulated with delayed sequential closure (DSC) guided by Doppler ultrasound control. Methods: Retrospective analysis of DSC performed from 2013 to March 2020. Results: Twenty‐seven DSC (26.5%) were identified out of 102 PLT. Transplant indications and type of grafts were similar among both groups. In patients with DSC, mean weight and GRWR were 9.4 ± 5.5 kg (3.1–26 kg) and 4.7 ± 2.4 (1.9–9.7), significantly lower and higher than the primary closure cohort, respectively. The median time to achieve definitive closure was 6 days (range 3–23 days), and the median number of procedures was 4 (range 2–9). Patients with DSC had longer overall PICU (22.5 ± 16.9 vs. 9.1 ± 9.7 days, p <.05) and hospital stay (33.4 ± 19.1 vs 23, 9 ± 19.8 days (p <.05). These differences are less remarkable if the analysis is performed in a subgroup of patients weighing less than 10 kg. Two patients presented vascular complications (7.4%) within DSC group. No differences were seen when comparing overall, 3‐year graft and patient survival (96% and 96% in the DSC group). Conclusions: DSC is a simple and safe technique to ensure satisfactory clinical outcomes to overcome "large for size" scenarios in PLT. In addition, we were able to avoid using a permanent biological material for closing the abdomen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Subcuticular suturing has emerged as a prominent technique for abdominal wall closure, offering notable benefits in cosmetic outcomes, infection reduction, and patient satisfaction. This comprehensive review delves into the evolution and current state of subcuticular suturing, examining its principles, techniques, and advancements. Traditional methods like continuous and interrupted suturing are compared with modern innovations like barbed sutures and knotless techniques. Clinical outcomes, including healing efficacy, complication rates, and cost-effectiveness, are analyzed to highlight the technique's advantages. The review also explores specific applications in various surgical specialities, presenting case studies and clinical trials to substantiate its effectiveness. Despite certain challenges and limitations, the future of subcuticular suturing appears promising with ongoing research and technological advancements. This review aims to thoroughly understand subcuticular suturing, emphasizing its significance in improving surgical outcomes and patient care in abdominal wall closure., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Maheshwari et al.)

Abstract Background Incisional hernias are among the most frequent complications following abdominal surgery and cause substantial morbidity, impaired health-related quality of life and costs. Despite improvements in abdominal wall closure techniques, the risk for developing an incisional hernia is reported to be between 10 and 30% following midline laparotomies. There have been two recent innovations with promising results to reduce hernia risks, namely the small stitches technique and the placement of a prophylactic mesh. So far, these two techniques have not been evaluated in combination. Methods The HULC trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled, observer- and patient-blinded surgical effectiveness trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 812 patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery via a midline laparotomy will be randomized in 12 centres after informed consent. Patients will be randomly assigned to the control group receiving closure of the midline incision with a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in the small stitches technique or to the intervention group, who will receive a small stitches closure followed by augmentation with a light-weight polypropylene mesh in the onlay technique. The primary endpoint will be the occurrence of incisional hernias, as defined by the European Hernia Society, within 24 months after surgery. Further perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes. Discussion The HULC trial will address the yet unanswered question of whether a combination of small stitched fascial closure and onlay mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomies reduces the risk of incisional hernias. The HULC trial marks the logical and innovative next step in the development of a safe abdominal closure technique. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00017517. Registered on 24th June 2019.

Purpose: Lower transverse abdominal incisions are typically used by obstetricians/gynecologists and colorectal surgeons. The suture technique and choice of material when closing the abdomen is an essential factor to decrease the risk of incisional hernia. We conducted a nationwide survey among obstetricians/gynecologists and colorectal surgeons investigating the surgical handling of the fascia, rectus muscle, subcutis, peritoneum, and skin, in lower transverse incisions. Methods: All departments of obstetrics/gynecology and departments of surgery performing colorectal surgery in Denmark were invited to participate. An online questionnaire was sent to consultant obstetricians/gynecologists and colorectal surgeons. The survey consisted of demographic information together with questions on surgical details. The study was reported according to STROBE guidelines. Results: A total of 252 (64.5%) consultants provided a complete response to the survey. We found that 98.0% of the colorectal surgeons and 65.8% of the obstetricians/gynecologists used monofilament suture when closing the fascia. The majority of the colorectal surgeons used continuous suture and small bites technique. This was only the case for half of the obstetricians/gynecologists. Approximately two thirds of the colorectal surgeons and one third of the OB/GYN used the suture length to wound length ratio > 4:1. Furthermore, we found significant differences between the groups in the handling of subcutis, peritoneum, and skin. Conclusion: We found significant variation in abdominal wall closure techniques in lower transverse incisions. Disagreement between the current guidelines within the specialties together with insufficient evidence on the closure of lower transverse incisions emphasizes the need for education as well as further studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study tries to compare three methods in complex abdominal wall reconstruction.Methods: A retrospective review was conducted at a single medical center between December 2008 and May 2019. Forty-seven patients who received abdominal fascia repair were enrolled. The patients were divided into three groups: A [component separation technique (CST)], B (partition technique), and C [extended anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap]. All relevant patient information was collected. Statistical analysis including one-way analysis of variance, Chi-square test, and the receiver operating characteristic curve were used.Results: There were no significant differences between the group results related to gender, age, BMI, follow-up, diabetes mellitus, tobacco, or short-, and long-term complications. However, there were significant differences in fascia defect size between groups (group A: 7.6 cm vs. group B: 10.76 cm vs. group C: 13.64 cm). The averaged operative time in group C (339.25 mins) was significantly longer than that in group A (145.40 mins) and B (152.37 mins). The hospitalization in group C (24.1 days) was significantly longer than that in group A (8.2 days) and B (10.3 days). The complication thresholds of group A and group B are 9.45 cm and 11.75 cm, respectively.Conclusion: This study suggests that extended ALT flap provides the largest fascia defect closure, followed orderly by partition technique and CST, but requires longer operative time and hospitalization. There are no significant differences in postoperative complications between three groups. A prospective study with indications based on these findings is suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first edition of the World Society of Emergency Surgeons (WSES) guidelines on the indications and treatment of open abdomen in trauma as well as in non-trauma patients was published at the end of 2018. Publications from 1980 to 2017 were included in the evaluation. Based on the GRADE system each publication was checked for its evidence and evaluated in a Delphi process. In this article the aspects of the guidelines are presented and commented on. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Failure to close the abdomen after intestinal or multivisceral transplantation (Tx) remains a frequently occurring problem. Two attractive reconstruction methods, especially in large abdominal wall defects, are full-thickness abdominal wall vascularized composite allograft (AW-VCA) and nonvascularized rectus fascia (NVRF) Tx. This review compares surgical technique, immunology, integration, clinical experience, and indications of both techniques. In AW-VCA Tx, vascular anastomosis is required and the graft undergoes hypotrophy post-Tx. Furthermore, it has immunologic benefits and good clinical outcome. NVRF Tx is an easy technique without the need for vascular anastomosis. Moreover, a rapid integration and neovascularization occurs with excellent clinical outcome., Competing Interests: Disclosure L.J. Ceulemans and L. Thorrez were granted an FTBO grant from KU Leuven; L.J. Ceulemans is appointed as senior clinical investigator for Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abdominal wall closure after pediatric liver transplantation (pLT) in infants may be hampered by graft‐to‐recipient size discrepancy. Herein, we describe the use of a porcine dermal collagen acellular graft (PDCG) as a biological mesh (BM) for abdominal wall closure in pLT recipients. Patients <2 years of age, who underwent pLT from 2011 to 2014, were analyzed, divided into definite abdominal wall closure with and without implantation of a BM. Primary end‐point was the occurrence of postoperative abdominal wall infection. Secondary end‐points included 1‐ and 5‐year patient and graft survival and the development of abdominal wall hernia. In five out of 21 pLT recipients (23.8%), direct abdominal wall closure was achieved, whereas 16 recipients (76.2%) received a BM. BM removal was necessary in one patient (6.3%) due to abdominal wall infection, whereas no abdominal wall infection occurred in the no‐BM group. No significant differences between the two groups were observed for 1‐ and 5‐year patient and graft survival. Two late abdominal wall hernias were observed in the BM group vs none in the no‐BM group. Definite abdominal wall closure with a BM after pLT is feasible and safe when direct closure cannot be achieved with comparable postoperative patient and graft survival rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: From an epidemiological point of view, one third of the population in industrialized countries will undergo abdominal surgery during their lifetime. Depending on the degree of patient-related and procedure-related risks, the occurrence of incisional hernias is associated in a range of up to 30% at 2‑year follow-up and even up to 60% at 5 years. In addition to influencing comorbidities, the type of surgical approach and closure technique are of critical importance., Objective: To present a descriptive evidence-based recommendation for abdominal wall closure and prophylactic mesh augmentation., Material and Methods: A concise summary was prepared incorporating the current literature and existing guidelines., Results: According to recent studies the recognized risk for the occurrence of incisional hernias in the presence of obesity and abdominal aortic diseases also applies to patients undergoing colorectal surgery and the presence of diastasis recti abdominis. Based on high-level published data, the short stitch technique for midline laparotomy in the elective setting has a high level of evidence to be a standard procedure. Patients with an increased risk profile should receive prophylactic mesh reinforcement, either onlay or sublay, in addition to the short stitch technique. In emergency laparotomy, the individual risk of infection with respect to the closure technique used must be included., Conclusion: The avoidance of incisional hernias is primarily achieved by the minimally invasive access for laparoscopy. For closure of the most commonly used midline approach, the short stitch technique and, in the case of existing risk factors, additionally mesh augmentation are recommended., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Incisional hernias are among the most frequent complications following abdominal surgery and cause substantial morbidity, impaired health-related quality of life and costs. Despite improvements in abdominal wall closure techniques, the risk for developing an incisional hernia is reported to be between 10 and 30% following midline laparotomies. There have been two recent innovations with promising results to reduce hernia risks, namely the small stitches technique and the placement of a prophylactic mesh. So far, these two techniques have not been evaluated in combination.Methods: The HULC trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled, observer- and patient-blinded surgical effectiveness trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 812 patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery via a midline laparotomy will be randomized in 12 centres after informed consent. Patients will be randomly assigned to the control group receiving closure of the midline incision with a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in the small stitches technique or to the intervention group, who will receive a small stitches closure followed by augmentation with a light-weight polypropylene mesh in the onlay technique. The primary endpoint will be the occurrence of incisional hernias, as defined by the European Hernia Society, within 24 months after surgery. Further perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes.Discussion: The HULC trial will address the yet unanswered question of whether a combination of small stitched fascial closure and onlay mesh augmentation after elective midline laparotomies reduces the risk of incisional hernias. The HULC trial marks the logical and innovative next step in the development of a safe abdominal closure technique.Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00017517. Registered on 24th June 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alexander Josef Mack,1 Bjarte Rogdo2 1Department of Pediatric Surgery, 2Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Switzerland, St Gallen, Switzerland Abstract: Giant omphalocele (GO) is a congenital ventral abdominal wall defect characterized by a large opening with herniated abdominal organs, including liver, loss of abdominal cavity volume, and other associated congenital anomalies. Treatment of patients with GO represents a major challenge for involved caregivers. Despite significant improvements in neonatal intensive and surgical care over the last decades, the condition is still associated with high mortality rates and a high risk of severe morbidity in survivors. The principles of the earliest attempts to treat GO surgically and conservatively are still easily recognized in the main approaches used today. In this review, we discuss the more recent developments in the treatment of GO, including perioperative management and associated morbidities of the condition. Keywords: giant omphalocele, abdominal wall closure, staged repair, delayed repair

Purpose: To provide guidelines for all surgical specialists who deal with the open abdomen (OA) or the burst abdomen (BA) in adult patients both on the methods used to close the musculofascial layers of the abdominal wall, and regarding possible materials to be used.Methods: The guidelines were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach including publications up to January 2017. When RCTs were available, outcomes of interest were quantitatively synthesized by means of a conventional meta-analysis. When only observational studies were available, a meta-analysis of proportions was done. The guidelines were written using the AGREE II instrument.Results: For many of the Key Questions that were researched, there were no high quality studies available. While some strong recommendations could be made according to GRADE, the guidelines also contain good practice statements and clinical expertise guidance which are distinct from recommendations that have been formally categorized using GRADE.Recommendations: When considering the OA, dynamic closure techniques should be prioritized over the use of static closure techniques (strong recommendation). However, for techniques including suture closure, mesh reinforcement, component separation techniques and skin grafting, only clinical expertise guidance was provided. Considering the BA, a clinical expertise guidance statement was advised for dynamic closure techniques. Additionally, a clinical expertise guidance statement concerning suture closure and a good practice statement concerning mesh reinforcement during fascial closure were proposed. The role of advanced techniques such as component separation or relaxing incisions is questioned. In addition, the role of the abdominal girdle seems limited to very selected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) have most probably an inflammatory origin, whereby the elastica is the layer actually involved. In the past, collagen weackness was supposed to be the shared cause of both, AAA and incisional hernias. Since the development of new techniques of closure of the abdominal wall over the last decade, collagen deficency seems to play only a secondary etiologic role.Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate whether the incidence of incisional hernia following laparotomy due to AAA differs from that of colorectal interventions.Material and methods: This was a retrospective control matched cohort study. After screening of 403 patients with colorectal interventions and 96 patients with AAA, 27 and 72 patients, respectively were included. The match criteria for inclusion of patients with colorectal interventions were: age, benign underlying disease and median xiphopubic laparotomy. The primary endpoint was the incidence of an incisional hernia. The secondary endpoints were the risk profile, length of stay in the intensive care unit and postoperative complications. Data analysis was carried in the consecutive collective from 2006 to 2008.Results: In the group with AAA the mean follow-up was 34.5±18.1 months and in the group with colorectal interventions 35.7±21.4 months. The incidence of incisional hernias showed no significant differences between the two groups. In the AAA group 10 patients (13.8%) developed an incisional hernia in contrast to 7 patients in the colorectal intervention group (25.9%).Conclusions: In our collective patients with AAA did not show an increased incidence of incisional hernia in comparison to patients with colorectal interventions with comparable size of the laparotomy access and age. The quality of closure of the abdominal wall seems to be an important factor for the prevention of incisional hernia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The study's purpose is to evaluate the long-term outcome after vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction (VAWCM) and to identify predictors of quality of life associated with intensive care. Methods: Fifty-five patients who underwent open abdomen management at our institution from 2006 to 2013 were prospectively enrolled in this study. After a median follow-up period of 3.8 years, 27 patients completed the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) quality of life questionnaire. As this is a report solely focused on quality of life, direct treatment-related outcome measures like mortality, closure rates, and incisional hernia development of this study cohort have been reported previously. Results: SF-36 physical role (54.6 ± 41.0 (0-100), p < 0.01), physical functioning (68.4 ± 29.5 (0-100), p = 0.01), and physical component summary (41.6 ± 13.0 (19-62), p = 0.01) scores for the patient population were significantly lower than normative scores. Significant correlations were found between physical functioning and total treatment costs ( r = −0.66, p = 0.01), total units of packed red blood cells ( r = −0.56, p = 0.04), and the complex intensive care scores ( r = −0.50, p = 0.02). Simple and multiple regression analyses demonstrated that the complex intensive care score was the only predictor of physical functioning ( R = 0.50, β = −0.70, p = 0.02). Conclusions: Despite high short-term mortality and morbidity rates for these critically ill patients, open abdomen treatment using VAWCM allows patients to recover to an acceptable long-term quality of life. The complex intensive care score can be used as a surrogate parameter for the global severity of illness and was the only predictor of physical functioning (SF-36). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to assess the current status and knowledge of the Spanish colorectal surgeons on the wall closure., Methods: A single answer questionnaire of 25 closed questions was conducted using specific software for online surveys that was distributed to a cohort of colorectal surgeons., Results: 53 surgeons replied to the survey. The vast majority prefer a closure of the midlaparotomy with a very slow absorbing monofilament (67.92%) continuous suture (96.23%) in a single plane (81.13%). Mass stitches, retention systems, and loop sutures continue to be used. The most commonly used suture gauge was USP 1 (United States Pharmacopeia) (58.49%). The most commonly used needle is with a cylindrical body and a trocar tip. Only 50%, routinely perform wall closure after placement of a trocar equal to or greater than 10 mm. Almost everyone knows the 4:1 rule and thinks it should be applied, but the small bites technique is not performed. 50% would never place a prophylactic prosthesis. The closure is usually performed by the same surgeon who has performed the entire procedure. One out of five confesses not knowing the rate of incisional hernias in his unit., Conclusion: There is a lack of consensus and basic knowledge regarding the technical aspects of closure and the prevention of the appearance of incisional hernias. The use of slow absorbing monofilament continuous suture in a single plane seems well accepted., (Copyright © 2022 AEC. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)