Comparative study of leg wound skin closure in coronary artery bypass graft operations. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Comparison of laparoscopic and open repair of incisional and primary ventral hernia: results of a prospective randomized study. A prospective study between two different techniques for the repair of a large recurrent ventral hernia: a double mesh intraperitoneal repair versus onlay mesh repair.
A prospective randomised study of four different methods of leg wound skin closure after removal of the long saphenous vein was carried out in 113 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. These methods were: (1) continuous nylon vertical mattress suture (27 patients); (2) continuous subcuticular absorbable (Dexon) suture (29 patients); (3) metal skin staples (Autosuture) (27 patients); and (4) adhesive sutureless skin closure ("Op-site") (30 patients). All wounds were examined by two independent observers at five, 10, and 45 days after operation. At five days, inflammation, extent of oedema, discharge, and infection were assessed. At 10 days attention was paid to the state of wound healing and at 45 days to the final cosmetic appearance. The use of continuous subcuticular suture resulted in significantly less discharge than did the use of metal staples, nylon vertical mattress suture, or Op-site. The incidence of established wound infection was 4.5% overall, with no infection in the wounds closed with Dexon. Assessment of the healing process showed subcuticular Dexon to be more effective than metal staples or vertical mattress nylon suture. The final cosmetic result showed continuous subcuticular suture to be superior to nylon vertical mattress suture and skin staples but as effective as Op-site sutureless skin closure. The objective of this study was to determine the best treatment of incisional hernia, taking into account recurrence, complications, discomfort, cosmetic result, and patient satisfaction.
                Long-term results of incisional hernia repair are lacking. Retrospective studies and the midterm results of this study indicate that mesh repair is superior to suture repair. However, many surgeons are still performing suture repair.
                Between 1992 and 1998, a multicenter trial was performed, in which 181 eligible patients with a primary or first-time recurrent midline incisional hernia were randomly assigned to suture or mesh repair. In 2003, follow-up was updated.
                Median follow-up was 75 months for suture repair and 81 months for mesh repair patients. The 10-year cumulative rate of recurrence was 63% for suture repair and 32% for mesh repair (P < 0.001). Abdominal aneurysm (P = 0.01) and wound infection (P = 0.02) were identified as independent risk factors for recurrence. In patients with small incisional hernias, the recurrence rates were 67% after suture repair and 17% after mesh repair (P = 0.003). One hundred twenty-six patients completed long-term follow-up (median follow-up 98 months). In the mesh repair group, 17% suffered a complication, compared with 8% in the suture repair group (P = 0.17). Abdominal pain was more frequent in suture repair patients (P = 0.01), but there was no difference in scar pain, cosmetic result, and patient satisfaction.
                Mesh repair results in a lower recurrence rate and less abdominal pain and does not result in more complications than suture repair. Suture repair of incisional hernia should be abandoned. Incisional hernia is an important complication of abdominal surgery. Its repair has progressed from a primary suture repair to various mesh repairs and laparoscopic repair. Laparoscopic mesh repair is a promising alternative, and in the absence of consensus, needs prospective randomized controlled trials.
                Between April 2003 and April 2005, 66 patients with incisional, primary ventral and recurrent hernias were randomized to receive either open retro-rectus mesh repair or laparoscopic mesh repair. These patients were followed up at 1-, 3-, and 6-month intervals thereafter for a mean of 12.17 months (open repair group) and 13.73 months (laparoscopic repair group).
                Lower abdominal hernias after gynecologic operations constituted the majority of the hernias (approximately 50%) in both groups. There was no significant injury to viscera or vessel in either group and no conversions. The defect size was 42.12 cm in the open (group 1) and 65.66 cm2 in the laparoscopic group (group 2), and the prosthesis sizes were, respectively, 152.67 cm2 and 203.83 cm2. The hospital stay was 3.43 days in open group and 1.47 days in laparoscopic group (p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the pain scores between the two groups. More wound-related infectious complications occurred in the open group (33%) than in the laparoscopic group (6%) (p = 0.013). There was one recurrence in the open repair group (3%) and two recurrences in laparoscopic group (6%) (p = 0.55).
                Laparoscopic repair of incisional and ventral hernias is superior to open mesh repair in terms of significantly less blood loss, fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, and excellent cosmetic outcome. Massive ventral hernias are difficult to repair, especially with multiple recurrences. Numerous methods of repair have been described with an overall recurrence rate up to 33% after first repair and 44% after second repair, mostly occurring within 3 years of the repair.
                This is a prospective study on 41 patients who underwent surgery between January 2000 and August 2004 for recurrent large ventral hernias. Patients were randomized into two groups: group A included 22 patients, who were subjected to suture repair with an onlay polypropylene mesh, and group B, which included 19 patients, who were subjected to a tailored double mesh (Vicryl + polypropylene) intraperitoneal repair.
                Superficial wound infection occurred in two patients (4.8%), one in each group. By a median follow up of 30 months, seroma formation or hernia recurrence was not found in group B in comparison to seven and six cases, respectively, in group A (p < or = 0.000). There was no intraabdominal complication in the cases subjected to double mesh intraperitoneal repair due to the protective effect of the inner Vicryl layer, which is characterized by its low reactivity.
                A double mesh intraperitoneal repair (ADMIR) is successful for the repair of recurrent large ventral hernias as it is applicable to all sites of ventral hernias. The mesh is mostly hidden within the abdomen with relatively affordable pain allowing for early mobilization, the complication rate is low and so far no recurrence was reported. A long-term follow up with a larger number of cases is advisable in order to determine the long-term success of this kind of repair.
There is good evidence from three trials that open mesh repair is superior to suture repair in terms of recurrences, but inferior when considering wound infection. Six trials yielded insufficient evidence as to which type of mesh or which mesh position (on- or sublay) should be used. There was also insufficient evidence to advocate the use of the components separation technique.