Abdominal Closure With Reinforcing Suture Decreases Incisional Hernia Incidence After CRS/HIPEC.

IF 0.5 Q4 SURGERY International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery Pub Date : 2023-03-09 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.3389/jaws.2023.11188
Charlotta Wenzelberg, Ulf Petersson, Ingvar Syk, Olle Ekberg, Peder Rogmark
{"title":"Abdominal Closure With Reinforcing Suture Decreases Incisional Hernia Incidence After CRS/HIPEC.","authors":"Charlotta Wenzelberg, Ulf Petersson, Ingvar Syk, Olle Ekberg, Peder Rogmark","doi":"10.3389/jaws.2023.11188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) entails several risk factors for incisional hernia (IH). A few reports available showing incidences between 7% and 17%. At our institution fascia closure has been performed in a 4:1 suture to wound length manner, with a continuous 2-0 polydiaxanone suture (PDS-group) or with a 2-0 polypropylene suture preceded by a reinforced tension line (RTL) suture (RTL-group). Our hypothesis was that these patients might benefit from reinforcing the suture line with a lower IH incidence in this group. The aim was to evaluate the 1-year IH-incidence of the two different closures. <b>Methods:</b> Patients eligible for inclusion were treated with CRS/HIPEC between 2004 and 2019. IH was diagnosed by scrutinizing CT-scans 1 year ±3 months after surgery. Additional data was retrieved from clinical records and a prospective CRS/HIPEC-database. <b>Results:</b> Of 193 patients, 129 were included, 82 in the PDS- and 47 in the RTL-group. RTL-patients were 5 years younger, had less blood loss and more frequent postoperative neutropenia. No difference regarding sex, BMI, recent midline incisions, excision of midline scars, peritoneal cancer index score, complications (≥Clavien-Dindo 3b), or chemotherapy. Ten IH (7.8%) were found, 9 (11%) in the PDS- and 1 (2.1%) in the RTL-group (<i>p</i> = 0.071). <b>Conclusion:</b> An IH incidence of 7.8% in patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC is not higher than after laparotomies in general. The IH incidence in the PDS-group was 11% compared to 2% in the RTL-group. Even though significance was not reached, the difference is clinically relevant, suggesting an advantage with RTL suture.</p>","PeriodicalId":34200,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10831658/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Abdominal Wall and Hernia Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/jaws.2023.11188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) entails several risk factors for incisional hernia (IH). A few reports available showing incidences between 7% and 17%. At our institution fascia closure has been performed in a 4:1 suture to wound length manner, with a continuous 2-0 polydiaxanone suture (PDS-group) or with a 2-0 polypropylene suture preceded by a reinforced tension line (RTL) suture (RTL-group). Our hypothesis was that these patients might benefit from reinforcing the suture line with a lower IH incidence in this group. The aim was to evaluate the 1-year IH-incidence of the two different closures. Methods: Patients eligible for inclusion were treated with CRS/HIPEC between 2004 and 2019. IH was diagnosed by scrutinizing CT-scans 1 year ±3 months after surgery. Additional data was retrieved from clinical records and a prospective CRS/HIPEC-database. Results: Of 193 patients, 129 were included, 82 in the PDS- and 47 in the RTL-group. RTL-patients were 5 years younger, had less blood loss and more frequent postoperative neutropenia. No difference regarding sex, BMI, recent midline incisions, excision of midline scars, peritoneal cancer index score, complications (≥Clavien-Dindo 3b), or chemotherapy. Ten IH (7.8%) were found, 9 (11%) in the PDS- and 1 (2.1%) in the RTL-group (p = 0.071). Conclusion: An IH incidence of 7.8% in patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC is not higher than after laparotomies in general. The IH incidence in the PDS-group was 11% compared to 2% in the RTL-group. Even though significance was not reached, the difference is clinically relevant, suggesting an advantage with RTL suture.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用加固缝线缝合腹部可降低 CRS/HIPEC 术后切口疝的发生率。
背景:细胞减灭术(CRS)和腹腔内热化疗(HIPEC)是导致切口疝(IH)的几个危险因素。现有的一些报告显示,切口疝的发生率在 7% 到 17% 之间。在我们医院,筋膜缝合的缝合线与伤口长度的比例为 4:1,采用 2-0 聚二甲酮连续缝合线(PDS 组)或 2-0 聚丙烯缝合线(RTL 组),缝合前采用加强张力线(RTL)缝合。我们的假设是,这些患者可能会从加强缝合线中获益,因为该组的 IH 发生率较低。我们的目的是评估两种不同缝合方式的 1 年 IH 发生率。方法符合纳入条件的患者均在 2004 年至 2019 年期间接受过 CRS/HIPEC 治疗。术后1年±3个月的CT扫描可确诊IH。其他数据来自临床记录和前瞻性 CRS/HIPEC 数据库。结果:193名患者中有129人被纳入研究,其中82人属于PDS组,47人属于RTL组。RTL 组患者年轻 5 岁,失血量较少,术后中性粒细胞减少症发生率较高。在性别、体重指数、近期中线切口、中线疤痕切除、腹膜癌指数评分、并发症(≥克拉维恩-丁多 3b)或化疗方面无差异。共发现 10 例 IH(7.8%),其中 PDS 组 9 例(11%),RTL 组 1 例(2.1%)(P = 0.071)。结论在接受 CRS/HIPEC 的患者中,IH 发生率为 7.8%,并不比一般开腹手术高。PDS组的IH发生率为11%,而RTL组为2%。尽管没有达到显著性,但这一差异具有临床意义,表明 RTL 缝合术具有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Flu-like symptoms following botulinum toxin A application before incisional hernia repair: A case report A rare case report of inverse sciatic hernia unveiling as a lipoma Closed-loop obstruction due to internal hernia: An atypical clinical presentation of acute abdomen - A case report Laparoscopic management of delayed traumatic left diaphragmatic hernia with intrathoracic kidney: A rare case report and technical aspects Unique laparoscopic emergency management of traumatic obstructed abdominal wall hernia: A case report and review of literature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1