Scholarlink

Background <p>Anterior component separation (ACS), or Ramirez component separation technique, is an established technique still used by surgeons to repair a ventral hernia. Compared with other ventral hernia repair techniques, recent studies about ACS show more postoperative complications like wound breakdown, wound infection, hematoma, skin necrosis, seroma, and recurrence. Our study aims to compare the ACS technique with the preservation perforator technique and verify if the perforator preservation technique can decrease postoperative complications.</p> Materials and methods <p>Cochrane Central, Embase, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing the perforator-sparing ACS ventral hernia repair and the standard technique. Outcomes assessed were wound breakdown, skin necrosis, wound infection, seroma, hematoma, reoperation, and recurrence at least 3 months postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio.</p> Results <p>94 studies were screened, and 11 studies were selected for full-text reading. Seven studies were selected, comprising 761 patients, of which 309 (40.6%) underwent the perforator-sparing ACS technique. We found lower wound breakdown rates for the preservation technique (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.32; 0.63; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). Also, the perforator-sparing technique presented lower reoperation rates (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35; 0.72; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). No differences were found in skin necrosis (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.03; 1.63; <i>p</i> = 0.14), wound infection (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.25; 1.90; <i>p</i> = 0.47), seroma (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.07; 1.26; <i>p</i> = 0.1), hematoma (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.11; 5.06; <i>p</i> = 0.75), or recurrence (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.37; 1.74; <i>p</i> = 0.59) rates.</p> Conclusion <p>Our comprehensive systematic review with meta-analysis compared the perforator-sparing ACS with the standard technique and found lower wound breakdown and reoperation rates for the perforator-sparing technique. No differences were found in the other outcomes analyzed.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Anterior component separation techniques: is it necessary to preserve the perforators? a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月9日

查看全文
  • Mariana de Macedo Torves,
  • Carlos André Balthazar da Silveira,
  • Raquel Nogueira,
  • Leandro Totti Cavazzola,
  • Diego L. Lima

摘要

Background

Anterior component separation (ACS), or Ramirez component separation technique, is an established technique still used by surgeons to repair a ventral hernia. Compared with other ventral hernia repair techniques, recent studies about ACS show more postoperative complications like wound breakdown, wound infection, hematoma, skin necrosis, seroma, and recurrence. Our study aims to compare the ACS technique with the preservation perforator technique and verify if the perforator preservation technique can decrease postoperative complications.

Materials and methods

Cochrane Central, Embase, and PubMed were systematically searched for studies comparing the perforator-sparing ACS ventral hernia repair and the standard technique. Outcomes assessed were wound breakdown, skin necrosis, wound infection, seroma, hematoma, reoperation, and recurrence at least 3 months postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed with R Studio.

Results

94 studies were screened, and 11 studies were selected for full-text reading. Seven studies were selected, comprising 761 patients, of which 309 (40.6%) underwent the perforator-sparing ACS technique. We found lower wound breakdown rates for the preservation technique (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.32; 0.63; p < 0.01). Also, the perforator-sparing technique presented lower reoperation rates (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35; 0.72; p < 0.01). No differences were found in skin necrosis (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.03; 1.63; p = 0.14), wound infection (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.25; 1.90; p = 0.47), seroma (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.07; 1.26; p = 0.1), hematoma (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.11; 5.06; p = 0.75), or recurrence (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.37; 1.74; p = 0.59) rates.

Conclusion

Our comprehensive systematic review with meta-analysis compared the perforator-sparing ACS with the standard technique and found lower wound breakdown and reoperation rates for the perforator-sparing technique. No differences were found in the other outcomes analyzed.