AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightHSA/body surface area (BSA) was statistically significantly different between endoscopic and conventional CSTgroups.Conclusion: According to our results, HSA/BSA and CSI are statistically successful for preoperative prediction of mesh placement.Furthermore, HSA/BSA preoperatively successfully predicts whether conventional or endoscopic CST should be used in patients withGVIH.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Background/aim: Giant ventral incisional hernias (GVIHs) are hard to manage for surgeons. This problem was resolved in 1990 withthe components separation technique (CST). We aimed to compare endoscopic and conventional CST for GVIHs and find a newanthropometric calculation.Materials and methods: In this prospective nonrandomized clinical trial, 21 patients were treated with endoscopic or conventional CSTbetween 2012 and 2016. Eight patients (38.1%) were operated endoscopically and 13 (61.9%) conventionally on the basis of preoperativetomography results, hernia surface area (HSA), number of recent abdominal operations, comorbidities, and the presence or history ofostomy. Groups in which prosthetic material was applied were also compared with groups in which it was not.Results: There was no statistically significant difference between endoscopic and conventional CST groups in terms of complications.A weakly statistically significant difference (P = 0.069) was found between the components separation index (CSI) of mesh-applied andnot-applied patients. HSA/body surface area (BSA) was statistically significantly different between endoscopic and conventional CSTgroups.Conclusion: According to our results, HSA/BSA and CSI are statistically successful for preoperative prediction of mesh placement.Furthermore, HSA/BSA preoperatively successfully predicts whether conventional or endoscopic CST should be used in patients withGVIH.