Up and down or side to side? A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the impact of incision on outcomes after abdominal surgery

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey School of Medicine, 205 South Orange Avenue, G-1222, Newark, NJ 07103, USA. Electronic address: .
American journal of surgery (Impact Factor: 2.41). 04/2013; 206(3). DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.11.008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine whether midline, paramedian, or transverse incisions offer potential advantages for abdominal surgery. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1966 to 2009 for randomized controlled trials comparing incision choice. METHODS: We systematically assessed trials for eligibility and validity and extracted data in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included. Transverse incisions required less narcotics than midline incisions (weighted mean difference = 23.4 mg morphine; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9 to 39.9) and resulted in a smaller change in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second on postoperative day 1 (weighted mean difference = -6.94%; 95% CI, -10.74 to -3.13). Midline incisions resulted in higher hernia rates compared with both transverse incisions (relative risk = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.87) and paramedian incisions (relative risk = 3.41; 95% CI, 1.02 to 11.45). CONCLUSIONS: Both transverse and paramedian incisions are associated with a lower hernia rate than midline incisions and should be considered when exposure is equivalent.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Few larger studies have estimated the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) after abdominal surgery.Methods Patients who had abdominal surgery between November 2009 and February 2011 were included in the study. The incidence rate and risk factors for IH were monitored for at least 180 days.ResultsA total of 4305 consecutive patients were registered. Of these, 378 were excluded because of failure to complete follow-up and 3927 patients were analysed. IH was diagnosed in 318 patients. The estimated incidence rates for IH were 5·2 per cent at 12 months and 10·3 per cent at 24 months. In multivariable analysis, wound classification III and IV (hazard ratio (HR) 2·26, 95 per cent confidence interval 1·52 to 3·35), body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher (HR 1·76, 1·35 to 2·30), midline incision (HR 1·74, 1·28 to 2·38), incisional surgical-site infection (I-SSI) (HR 1·68, 1·24 to 2·28), preoperative chemotherapy (HR 1·61, 1·08 to 2·37), blood transfusion (HR 1·46, 1·04 to 2·05), increasing age by 10-year interval (HR 1·30, 1·16 to 1·45), female sex (HR 1·26, 1·01 to 1·59) and thickness of subcutaneous tissue for every 1-cm increase (HR 1·18, 1·03 to 1·35) were identified as independent risk factors. Compared with superficial I-SSI, deep I-SSI was more strongly associated with the development of IH.Conclusion Although there are several risk factors for IH, reducing I-SSI is an important step in the prevention of IH. Registration number: UMIN000004723 (University Hospital Medical Information Network,
    British Journal of Surgery 08/2014; 101(11). DOI:10.1002/bjs.9600 · 5.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ventral incisional hernias (VIH) develop in up to 20% of patients after abdominal surgery. No widely applicable preoperative risk-assessment tool exists. We aimed to develop and validate a risk-assessment tool to predict VIH after abdominal surgery. A prospective study of all patients undergoing abdominal surgery was conducted at a single institution from 2008 to 2010. Variables were defined in accordance with the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project, and VIH was determined through clinical and radiographic evaluation. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was built from a development cohort (2008 to 2009) to identify predictors of VIH. The HERNIAscore was created by converting the hazards ratios (HR) to points. The predictive accuracy was assessed on the validation cohort (2010) using a receiver operator characteristic curve and calculating the area under the curve (AUC). Of 625 patients followed for a median of 41 months (range 0.3 to 64 months), 93 (13.9%) developed a VIH. The training cohort (n = 428, VIH = 70, 16.4%) identified 4 independent predictors: laparotomy (HR 4.77, 95% CI 2.61 to 8.70) or hand-assisted laparoscopy (HAL, HR 4.00, 95% CI 2.08 to 7.70), COPD (HR 2.35; 95% CI 1.44 to 3.83), and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m(2) (HR1.74; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.91). Factors that were not predictive included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesioloigsts (ASA) score, albumin, immunosuppression, previous surgery, and suture material or technique. The predictive score had an AUC = 0.77 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86) using the validation cohort (n = 197, VIH = 23, 11.6%). Using the HERNIAscore: HERNIAscore = 4∗Laparotomy+3∗HAL+1∗COPD+1∗ BMI ≥ 25, 3 classes stratified the risk of VIH: class I (0 to 3 points),5.2%; class II (4 to 5 points),19.6%; and class III (6 points), 55.0%. The HERNIAscore accurately identifies patients at increased risk for VIH. Although external validation is needed, this provides a starting point to counsel patients and guide clinical decisions. Increasing the use of laparoscopy, weight-loss programs, community smoking prevention programs, and incisional reinforcement may help reduce rates of VIH. Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of the American College of Surgeons 01/2015; 220(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.027 · 4.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The material and the surgical technique used to close an abdominal wall incision are important determinants of the risk of developing an incisional hernia. Optimising closure of abdominal wall incisions holds a potential to prevent patients suffering from incisional hernias and for important costs savings in health care. The European Hernia Society formed a Guidelines Development Group to provide guidelines for all surgical specialists who perform abdominal incisions in adult patients on the materials and methods used to close the abdominal wall. The guidelines were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and methodological guidance was taken from Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). The literature search included publications up to April 2014. The guidelines were written using the AGREE II instrument. An update of these guidelines is planned for 2017. For many of the Key Questions that were studied no high quality data was detected. Therefore, some strong recommendations could be made but, for many Key Questions only weak recommendations or no recommendation could be made due to lack of sufficient evidence. To decrease the incidence of incisional hernias it is strongly recommended to utilise a non-midline approach to a laparotomy whenever possible. For elective midline incisions, it is strongly recommended to perform a continuous suturing technique and to avoid the use of rapidly absorbable sutures. It is suggested using a slowly absorbable monofilament suture in a single layer aponeurotic closure technique without separate closure of the peritoneum. A small bites technique with a suture to wound length (SL/WL) ratio at least 4/1 is the current recommended method of fascial closure. Currently, no recommendations can be given on the optimal technique to close emergency laparotomy incisions. Prophylactic mesh augmentation appears effective and safe and can be suggested in high-risk patients, like aortic aneurysm surgery and obese patients. For laparoscopic surgery, it is suggested using the smallest trocar size adequate for the procedure and closure of the fascial defect if trocars larger or equal to 10 mm are used. For single incision laparoscopic surgery, we suggest meticulous closure of the fascial incision to avoid an increased risk of incisional hernias.
    Hernia 01/2015; 19(1). DOI:10.1007/s10029-014-1342-5 · 2.09 Impact Factor
Show more