Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Small bite fascial closure technique reduces incisional hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients
  1. Alli M Straubhar1,
  2. Cynthia Stroup1,
  3. Amanda Manorot1,
  4. Kevin McCool2,
  5. Aimee Rolston1,
  6. R Kevin Reynolds2,
  7. Karen McLean2,
  8. Olivia de Bear1,
  9. Jean Siedel1 and
  10. Shitanshu Uppal1
    1. 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    2. 2University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    1. Correspondence to Dr. Shitanshu Uppal, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA; uppal{at}umich.edu

    Abstract

    Background The potential for the technique of small bite fascial closure in mitigating incisional hernias in gynecologic oncology patients still needs to be investigated.

    Objective To evaluate the impact of closure of small fascial bites compared with prior standard closure on incisional hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients.

    Methods This is a retrospective cohort study comparing patient outcomes before and after the intervention at a single institution at a comprehensive cancer center. Patients who underwent laparotomy with a vertical midline incision for a suspected or known gynecologic malignancy with a 1-year follow-up were included. The pre-intervention cohort (large bites) had ‘mass’ or modified running Smead-Jones closure. In contrast, the post-intervention cohort had fascial bites taken 5–8 mm laterally with no more than 5 mm travel (small bites) closure using a 2–0 polydioxanone suture.

    The primary outcome was the incisional hernias rate determined by imaging or clinical examination within the first year of follow-up. Patient factors and peri-operative variates of interest were investigated for their association with hernia formation through univariate and multivariate analyses. These included age, body mass index (BMI), smoking history, estimated blood loss, pre-operative albumin, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) physical status classification, or treatment with chemotherapy post-operatively.

    Results Of the 255 patients included, the total hernia rate was 12.5% (32/255 patients). Patient characteristics were similar in both cohorts. Small bite closure led to a significant reduction in hernia rates from 17.2% (22/128 patients) to 7.9% (10/127 patients), p=0.025. According to logistic regression modeling, small bite closure (OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.94, p=0.036) was independently associated with lower odds of hernia formation. Other factors associated with increased hernia rates were chemotherapy (OR=3.22, 95% CI 1.22 to 8.51, p=0.019) and obesity (OR=23.4, 95% CI 3.09 to 177, p=0.002). In obese patients, small bite closures led to maximal hernia rate reduction compared with large bites.

    Conclusions The small bite closure technique effectively reduces hernia rates in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing midline laparotomy.

    • Ovarian Cancer
    • Surgery

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @uppals

    • Contributors Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work: all authors. Drafting/review/editing final manuscript: all authors. Final approval: all authors. Agree to be accountable for all materials: all authors. Guarantor: SU.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.