A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Evolution of abdominal wall reconstruction: development of a unified algorithm with improved outcomes. | LitMetric

Introduction: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) continues to evolve and now frequently includes some form of component separation (CS) for large defects. To determine the optimal technique for VHR, we evaluated our outcomes before and after we refined and simplified our algorithm for repair.

Methods: One hundred five consecutive patients undergoing VHR for large midline hernias over 9 years were examined. Patients were divided into those operated on after (group 1) and before (group 2) the institution of our simplified algorithm. Our algorithm emphasizes careful patient selection and a stepwise approach including, but not limited to, bilateral CS if appropriate, preservation of large perforators, retrorectus mesh placement as appropriate, linea alba or midline fascial closure, and vertical panniculectomy. Primary outcomes evaluated included wound infection, dehiscence, and hernia recurrence.

Results: Seventy-eight (74.3%) patients underwent repair using our algorithm (group 1), whereas 27 (25.7%) underwent repair before utilization of this algorithm (group 2). Ninety-eight (93.3%) underwent CS, whereas 7 (6.7%) underwent another form of VHR. There was no significant difference in patient age or defect size. The mean follow-up period in days for patients in group 1 and group 2 were 184.02 and 526.06, respectively (P < 0.001). Hernia recurrence in group 1 was 2.6% versus 29.6% in group 2 (P < 0.001). The incidence of wound infection in group 1 was 10.3%, whereas that in group 2 was 33.3% (P < 0.001). The rate of wound dehiscence in group 1 was 17.9% versus 25.9% in group 2 (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Simplifying and unifying our algorithm for VHR, notably with utilization of CS, has yielded improved results. Recurrence and wound healing complications using this approach are favorable compared with published outcomes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182a6367fDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

group
12
simplified algorithm
8
group group
8
wound infection
8
underwent repair
8
algorithm group
8
algorithm
7
vhr
5
evolution abdominal
4
abdominal wall
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!