Blunt Traumatic Abdominal Wall Hernias: A Surgeon’s Dilemma

Abstract

Background

Traumatic abdominal wall hernias (TAWH) have been recognized for more than a century since they were first reported by Selby (JAMA 47:1485–1486, 1906). They continue to be a rare diagnosis, encountered in approximately 1 % blunt trauma admissions. The present study is a 10-year retrospective review of patients presenting with TAWH to a State Major Trauma Unit in Western Australia. We hypothesized that the timing of the repair of TAWH was dependent on the severity of the abdominal wall injury, as well as associated injuries, and in turn, this may affect patient outcomes.

Materials and methods

The Trauma Registry at Royal Perth Hospital (the only Level I Trauma Centre for adults in Western Australia) was scrutinized for TAWH, between 2003 and 2013. The injuries were graded by the classification system of Dennis et al. (Am J Surg 197:413–417, 2009) .Patients with TAWH following penetrating trauma were excluded.

Results

During the study period, 44 patients were diagnosed to have TAWH accounting for 0.08 % of admissions. Thirty (68 %) of the patients were male and the median age was 36 years (IQR 24–54). The median BMI was between 25 and 30. The majority of the patients sustained trauma secondary to motor vehicle crashes and the commonest associated injury was a pelvic fracture. Grades 3 and 4 injuries were found to have an association with a pelvic fracture (p < 0.001). No association was seen in the present study between seat belt use and the development of TAWH or between the location of TAWH and seat belt pattern. The median time of diagnosis of TAWH following arrival to hospital was 18 hours while the median time of surgery from diagnosis was 15.5 hours. Forty-one (93 %) of the patients underwent surgery. Of these, 8 (20 %) were emergent due to a simultaneous bowel perforation and another five had primary mesh repairs. Three of the patients suffered superficial complications (7.5 %) and there were 3 (7 %) recurrences at a mean time of 7.25 months from the first repair. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 51 months with an average time of 16 months.

Conclusion

This series is the largest single institution study conducted on TAWH to date. Despite its retrospective nature and small numbers, it has generated some important questions. A larger prospective study with a longer follow-up period is required to generate reliable treatment algorithms as well as to standardize the management of TAWH.