Annual Meeting Home
Final Program
Past & Future Meetings
 

 

Back to Annual Meeting Program


Predicting Midline Fascial Re-approximation with Component Separation in Complex Ventral Hernias: Maximizing the Utility of Pre-operative Computed Tomography
Ketan M. Patel, MD, Brenton Franklin, MD, Laura Baldassari, MD, MHS, Frank Albino, MD, Maurice Nahabedian, MD, FACS, Parag Bhanot, MD.
Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.

BACKGROUND:
Component separation techniques have allowed for midline fascial re-approximation in large midline ventral hernias. In certain cases, however, fascial apposition is still not feasible resulting in a suboptimal bridged repair Previous estimates on myofascial advancement is based on hernia location and does not take into account variability between patients. Examination of pre-operative computed tomography (CT) may provide insight into these variabilities and may allow for prediction of abdominal closure with component separation.
METHODS:
An IRB-approved, retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction from 2007-2011 with component separation techniques by the senior author (PB). Pre-operative CT imaging was obtained for all patients and specific parameters were analyzed using image analysis software (Terarecon, Inc.). Student’s t-test and Fisher’s exact test were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Logistic regression was utilized to predict ideal operative closure. Multivariate analyses were adjusted for age and gender. The a priori p-value was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS:
54 patients met the study criteria and had pre-operative CT imaging available for analysis. 48 patients had fascial reapproximation achieved, while 6 patients had a bridged repair. Age, gender, weight, and BMI were similar between groups (p>0.05). Variables investigated are shown in Table 1. Significant differences were seen between groups in 3 variables; transverse defect size, defect area, and percent abdominal wall defect. Average transverse hernia defect and hernia area resulting in a bridged repair was 19.8cm and 420cm2 v. 10.4cm and 184.2cm2 in defects able to achieve closure (p<0.05). On analyzing the percent abdominal wall defect, bridged defects were found to be statistically higher than defects achieving closure (18.9% v. 10.6%; p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
Predicting midline approximation following component separation techniques is critical as outcomes following bridging repair result in high recurrence rates. Preoperative determination of abdominal wall defect ratios and hernia defect areas may represent a more accurate method to predict abdominal wall closure following component separation techniques.
Table 1: Type of Fascial Closure
Bridged (n = 6)Reapproximation (n =48)p-value*
Age (years)58.5 (11.0) 58.6 (12.2)0.984
Gender (% (n) male)33.3 (2)41.7 (20)1.000
Weight (kg)109.1 (22.2)101.3 (32.3)0.605
BMI (kg/m2)37.0 (4.2)35.7 (11.2)0.800
Defect size (Medial-lateral) (cm)19.8 (5.9)10.4 (5.3)0.0002
Defect size (Superior-inferior) (cm)21.5 (6.3)14.4 (8.2)0.050
Defect area (cm2)420.0 (184.8)184.2 (192.3)0.006
Defect percent18.9% (6.7%)10.6% (5.2%)0.0007
Rectus width - Left6.9 (3.1)6.4 (2.2)0.619
Rectus width - Right5.5 (2.1)6.1 (2.2)0.538
Abdominal wall circumference107.7 (19.3)98.2 (12.9)0.115
Pannus circumference128.2 (13.9)117.3 (16.1)0.118
Pannus thickness3.9 (1.4)3.7 (1.7)0.737
Intraabdominal area288.3 (160.4)233.5 (80.3)0.171
Abdominal wall thickness2.7 (0.8)4.9 (8.4)0.536
Abdominal wall/Pannus circumference0.84 (0.10)0.84 (0.08)0.886
Abdominal wall volume/Defect area81.90 (54.44)393.50 (605.17)0.217
Intraabdominal/Pannus volume0.77 (0.69)0.81 (0.65)0.898
Abdominal wall/Pannus circumference0.84 (0.10)0.84 (0.08)0.886

* p-values calculated using Student’s T-test assuming unequal variance for continuous variables, and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables
† Values reported as mean(SD) for continuous variables, %(n) for categorical variables
‡ Defect % calculated using the following formula: (Medial-lateral defect size)/(abdominal circumference) x 100
Table 2: Multivariate Analysis
UnivariateMultivariate*
OR (95% CI)p-valueOR (95% CI)p-value
Age (years)1.00 (0.93, 1.07)0.9841.00 (0.93, 1.07)0.982
Gender (% (n) male)1.43 (0.24, 8.57)0.6961.43 (0.24, 8.57)0.696
Weight (kg)0.99 (0.97, 1.02)0.5990.99 (0.97, 1.02)0.626
BMI (kg/m2)0.99 (0.91, 1.07)0.7950.99 (0.91, 1.08)0.858
Defect size (Medial-lateral)0.78 (0.65, 0.93)0.0050.77 (0.64, 0.92)0.003
Defect size (Superior-inferior)0.90 (0.81, 1.01)0.0660.89 (0.80, 1.00)0.053
Defect area (cm2)1.00 (0.99, 1.00)0.0290.995 (0.991, 0.999)0.016
Defect percent**1.84e(-11) (1.15e(-19), 0.003)0.0105.51e(-12) (8.45e(-21), 0.004)0.012
Rectus width - Left0.91 (0.64, 1.30)0.6130.88 (0.60, 1.28)0.510
Rectus width - Right1.14 (0.75, 1.75)0.5311.13 (0.72, 1.76)0.592
Abdominal wall circumference0.95 (0.89, 1.01)0.1250.94 (0.87, 1.01)0.082
Pannus circumference0.95 (0.89, 1.01)0.1290.95 (0.89, 1.02)0.134
Pannus thickness0.91 (0.55, 1.53)0.7310.93 (0.53, 1.65)0.812
Pannus area1.00 (0.99, 1.00)0.3161.00 (0.99, 1.00)0.331
Intraabdominal area0.99 (0.98, 1.00)0.1790.99 (0.98, 1.00)0.114
Abdominal wall thickness1.31 (0.63, 2.73)0.4751.31 (0.62, 2.78)0.477


Back to Annual Meeting Program

 

 
© 2018 Northeastern Society of Plastic Surgeons. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.