Department of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, 177 Fort Washington, 6th floor, South Knuckle, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2022 Jul;36(7):4834-4838. doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08831-1. Epub 2021 Nov 16.
Component separation (CS) procedures have become an important part of surgeons' armamentarium. However, the exact criteria for training, procedure/mesh choice, as well as patient selection for CS remains undefined. Herein we aimed to identify trends in CS utilization between various cohorts of practicing surgeons.
Members of the Americas Hernia Society were queried using an online survey. Responders were stratified according to their experience, practice profile (private vs academic, general vs hernia surgery), and volume (low (< 10/year) vs high) of CS procedures. We used Chi-squared tests to evaluate significant associations between surgeon characteristics and outcomes.
275 responses with overwhelming male preponderance (88%) were collected. The two most common self-identifiers were "general" (66%) and "hernia" (28%) surgeon. PCS was the most commonly (67%) used type of CS; endoscopic ACS was least common (3%). Low-volume surgeons were more likely to utilize the ACS (p < 0.05). Only 7% of respondents learned PCS during their residency, as compared to 36% that use ACS. 65% felt 0-10 cases was sufficient to become proficient in their preferred technique. 10 cm-wide defect was the most common indication for CS; 23% used it for 5-8 cm defects. Self-identified "hernia" and high-volume surgeons were more likely to use synthetic mesh in the setting of previous wound infections and/or contaminated field (p < 0.05). More general/low-volume surgeons use biologic mesh. Contraindications to elective CS varied widely in the cohort, and 9.5% would repair poorly optimized patients electively. Severe morbid obesity was the most feared comorbidity to preclude CS.
The use of CS varies widely between surgeons. In this cohort, we discovered that PCS was the most commonly used technique, especially by hernia/high-volume surgeons. There are differences in mesh utilization between high-volume and low-volume surgeons, specifically in contaminated fields. Despite its prevalence, CS training, indications/contraindications, and patient selection must be better defined.
组件分离(CS)程序已成为外科医生武器库中的重要组成部分。然而,CS 的培训、程序/网片选择以及患者选择的具体标准仍未确定。在此,我们旨在确定不同实践外科医生群体中 CS 应用的趋势。
使用在线调查对美洲疝学会的成员进行了查询。根据他们的经验、实践情况(私人与学术、普通与疝外科)以及 CS 手术的数量(低[<10/年]与高)对回答者进行分层。我们使用卡方检验评估外科医生特征与结果之间的显著关联。
收集了 275 份具有压倒性男性优势(88%)的回复。最常见的两个自我标识是“普通”(66%)和“疝”(28%)外科医生。最常用的 CS 类型是 PCS(67%);最不常见的是内镜 ACS(3%)。低容量外科医生更有可能使用 ACS(p<0.05)。只有 7%的受访者在住院医师期间学习了 PCS,而使用 ACS 的比例为 36%。65%的人认为 0-10 例足以熟练掌握他们首选的技术。10cm 宽的缺损是 CS 的最常见指征;23%的人用于 5-8cm 的缺损。自我标识为“疝”和高容量外科医生更有可能在先前存在伤口感染和/或污染区域的情况下使用合成网片(p<0.05)。更多的普通/低容量外科医生使用生物网片。该队列中 CS 的选择禁忌症差异很大,9.5%的人会选择择期修复优化不佳的患者。严重病态肥胖是排除 CS 的最令人恐惧的合并症。
CS 的应用在外科医生之间差异很大。在本队列中,我们发现 PCS 是最常用的技术,尤其是疝/高容量外科医生。高容量和低容量外科医生之间在网片使用方面存在差异,特别是在污染区域。尽管 CS 很普遍,但 CS 的培训、适应证/禁忌证以及患者选择必须更好地确定。