Anterior versus posterior component separation technique for advanced abdominal wall reconstruction: a proposed
P Dries1, B Verstraete2, M Allaeys2
1Department for General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. Pieter.dries@uzgent.be.
Objective:
The precise indications for employing the anterior component separation technique (ACST) and the Transversus Abdominis Release (TAR) in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) remain uncertain, despite the undeniable value of both techniques. The aim of this study was to analyze the anterior fascial closure rate, postoperative wound morbidity, and hernia recurrence rate for both procedures according to the algorithm used for complex AWR.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was carried out. Patients undergoing AWR for midline incisional hernias using either open or endoscopic ACST (E-ACST) or TAR between March 2013 and August 2022 were included. Patients with lateral hernia components were excluded. The surgical technique was depending on the pre- and intraoperative findings regarding hernia width and on the estimated traction to achieve anterior fascial closure (see algorithm). Initially, intermediate hernia defects ranging from approximately 10-14 cm in width were repaired using E-ACST. However, as the study advanced, TAR became the preferred method for addressing these types of defects. Open ACST was consistently employed for defects wider than 14-15 cm throughout the entire study duration. Outcomes of interest were anterior fascial closure, surgical site occurrences, and hernia recurrence rate. Follow-up was performed at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years.
Results:
A total of 119 patients underwent AWR with CST: 63 patients (52.9%) were included in the ACST group and 56 patients (47.1%) in the TAR group. No significant differences were observed in patient and hernia characteristics. The use of botulinum toxin A (BTA) injection and preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum (PPP) was more frequently used in the ACST group (BTA 19.0%, PPP 15.9% versus BTA 5.4%, PPP 1.8% for TAR patients). Anterior fascial closure was achieved in 95.2% of the ACST group and 98.2% of the TAR group (p = 0.369). The TAR group demonstrated a significantly lower SSO rate at one month (44.3% versus 14.3%, p < 0.001) and required fewer procedural interventions (SSO-PI) (31.1% versus 8.9%, p = 0.003). The recurrence rate at one year was low and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (ACST 1.8% vs TAR 4.5%, p = 0.422).
Conclusion:
Following a proposed algorithm, the anterior fascial closure rate was high and similar for both techniques. As postoperative wound morbidity is significantly increased after ACST, our findings support recommending TAR for defects up to 14 cm in width, while favoring open ACST for larger defects.
