4.2 Article

Incidence and prevention of ventral incisional hernia

Journal

JOURNAL OF VISCERAL SURGERY
Volume 149, Issue 5, Pages E3-E14

Publisher

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORPORATION OFFICE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2012.05.004

Keywords

Incidence; Prevention; Incisional hernia

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Ventral incisional hernia is a common complication of abdominal surgery. The incidence ranges from 2% to 20% and varies greatly from one series to another. The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, risk factors, and preventive measures for ventral incisional hernia. Materials and methods: An analysis of the surgical literature was performed using the search engines EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed with the keywords: abdominal hernia, wound dehiscence, incisional hernia, incidence, trocar site hernia, and hernia prevention. Results: The overall incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy was 9.9%. The incidence was significantly higher for midline incisions compared with transverse incisions (11% vs. 4.7%; P = 0.006). In contrast, the incidence of ventral hernia was only 0.7% after laparoscopy. A compilation of all the studies comparing laparotomy to laparoscopy showed a significantly higher incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy (P = 0.001). Independent risk factors for incisional hernia included age and infectious complications. Only two meta-analyses were able to show a significant decrease in risk-related to the use of non absorbable or slowly absorbable suture material. No difference in incisional hernia risk was shown with different suture techniques (11.1% for running suture, 9.8% for interrupted sutures: NS). Conclusion: A review of the literature shows that only the choice of incisional approach (transverse incision or laparotomy vs. midline laparotomy) allows a significant decrease in the incidence of ventral incisional hernia. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available