Endoscopic versus open component separation: systematic review and meta-analysis
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 26, 2026
Robotic D3 Partial Duodenal Resection with Primary Side-to-Side Anastomosis
Published on: December 15, 2023
Noah J Switzer1, Mark A Dykstra, Richdeep S Gill
1Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, 2D2.08 WMC, University of Alberta Hospital, 84410-112 Street, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2B7, Canada, nswitzer@ualberta.ca.
Background:
The component separation technique (CST) was developed to improve the integrity of abdominal wall reconstruction for large, complex hernias. Open CST necessitates large subcutaneous skin flaps and, therefore, is associated with significant ischemic wound complications. The minimally invasive or endoscopic component separation technique (MICST) has been suggested in preliminary studies to reduce wound complication rates post-operatively. In this study, we systematically reviewed the literature comparing open versus endoscopic component separation and performed a meta-analysis of controlled studies.
Methods:
A comprehensive search of electronic databases was completed. All English, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparison study, and case series were included. All comparison studies included in the meta-analysis were assessed independently by two reviewers for methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools.
Results:
63 primary studies (3,055 patients) were identified; 7 controlled studies and 56 case series. The total wound complication rate was lower for MICST (20.6 %) compared to Open CST (34.6 %). MICST compared to open CST was shown to have lower rates of superficial infections (3.5 vs 8.9 %), skin dehiscence (5.3 vs 8.2 %), necrosis (2.1 vs 6.8 %), hematoma/seroma formation (4.6 vs 7.4 %), fistula tract formation (0.4 vs 1.0 %), fascial dehiscence (0.0 vs 0.4 %), and mortality (0.4 vs 0.6 %.) The open component CST did have lower rates of intra-abdominal abscess formation (3.8 vs 4.6 %) and recurrence rates (11.1 vs 15.1 %). The meta-analysis included 7 non-randomized controlled studies (387 patients). A similar suggestive overall trend was found favoring MICST, although most types of wound complications did not show to significance. MICST was associated with a significantly decreased rate of fascial dehiscence and was shown to be significantly shorter procedure.
Conclusion:
This systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MICST to open CST suggests MICST is associated with decreased overall post-operative wound complication rates. Further prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.
