Kerr Samantha W, Mead Brittany S, Holland Alexis M, Lorenz William R, Scarola Gregory T, Kercher Kent W, Augenstein Vedra A, Heniford B Todd, Ayuso Sullivan A
Division of Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Department of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Surg Endosc. 2025 Jul 16. doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-11999-5.
Ventral hernia repair (VHR) of large defects poses significant technical challenges due to the size of the hernia and complexity of operative techniques required for fascial closure. This study examined clinical outcomes in "giant" open VHR (GVHR), with hernia defect size (HDS) ≥ 200 cm, versus "non-giant" open VHR (NGVHR) with HDS < 200 cm using a propensity-matched approach.
A prospectively-maintained database from a tertiary hernia center was reviewed for patients undergoing open VHR. 1:1 propensity-score matching was performed for GVHR versus NGVHR based on age, BMI, comorbidities, fascial defect closure, primary vs recurrent repair, CDC wound class, and ASA score. A multivariable regression model evaluated whether wound complications increased odds of recurrence. CDC class III/IV wounds and concomitant intraabdominal procedures were excluded. Standard statistical analyses were performed.
PSM yielded 254 well-matched pairs (all p > 0.05). Average age (59.7 ± 11.3 vs. 59.3 ± 12.3 years) and BMI (32.1 ± 6.5 vs. 32.4 ± 6.6 kg/m) were similar between GVHR and NGVHR. Tobacco status was similar for current and former smokers (3.9% vs. 3.9%; 29.9% vs. 29.9%). GVHR had larger defect size (354.7 ± 132.1 vs. 103.8 ± 61.9 cm; p < 0.001) and mesh size (1161.9 ± 450.0 vs. 771.2 ± 388.4 cm; p < 0.001). In GVHR, Botulinum toxin injections (15.4% vs. 2.8%; p < 0.001) and component separation (50.6% vs. 23.7%; p < 0.001) were more frequent. Fascial defect was closed in 100% of both groups (p > 0.999). GVHR had higher rates of wound complications (33.5% vs. 15.4%; p < 0.001), respiratory insufficiency or failure (4.7% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.012), reoperation (9.8% vs. 4.7%; p = 0.028), and greater average length-of-stay (6.9 ± 5.1 vs. 5.0 ± 2.0 days; p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference in recurrence (4.3% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.217) or follow-up (24.0 ± 37.8 vs. 27.4 ± 40.4 months; p = 0.558).
GVHR often required chemical and mechanical component separation to achieve fascial closure. However, with large preperitoneal mesh overlap and fascial closure, outcomes of large defects in VHR are comparable to smaller defects.
由于疝的大小以及筋膜闭合所需手术技术的复杂性,大型缺损的腹疝修补术(VHR)带来了重大的技术挑战。本研究采用倾向匹配法,比较疝缺损大小(HDS)≥200 cm的“巨大”开放性VHR(GVHR)与HDS<200 cm的“非巨大”开放性VHR(NGVHR)的临床结局。
回顾一家三级疝中心前瞻性维护的数据库中接受开放性VHR的患者。基于年龄、体重指数(BMI)、合并症、筋膜缺损闭合情况、初次修复与复发修复、疾病控制中心(CDC)伤口分级和美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)评分,对GVHR与NGVHR进行1:1倾向评分匹配。多变量回归模型评估伤口并发症是否会增加复发几率。排除CDC III/IV级伤口和同期腹腔内手术。进行标准统计分析。
倾向评分匹配产生了254对匹配良好的病例(所有p>0.05)。GVHR与NGVHR的平均年龄(59.7±11.3岁 vs. 59.3±12.3岁)和BMI(32.1±6.5 vs. 32.4±6.6 kg/m²)相似。当前吸烟者和既往吸烟者的吸烟状况相似(3.9% vs. 3.9%;29.9% vs. 29.9%)。GVHR的缺损尺寸更大(354.7±132.1 vs. 103.8±61.9 cm;p<0.001),补片尺寸更大(1161.