Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Incisional hernia, midline versus low transverse incision: what is the ideal incision for specimen extraction and hand-assisted laparoscopy?

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive surgery is associated with smaller surgical incisions than those of traditional midline laparotomy. However, most colorectal resections and all hand-assisted procedures require an incision either for specimen retrieval or insertion of the hand-assist device. The ideal site of this incision has not been evaluated with respect to the incidence of incisional hernia. This study compares the rates of incisional hernia associated with a standard midline laparotomy, a midline incision of reduced length, and a Pfannenstiel incision.

Methods

From March 2004 to July 2007, 512 consecutive patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were divided into three groups depending on the type of incision (open, midline, and Pfannenstiel). Demographic variables, rate of incisional hernia, and risk factors for hernia were compared among the groups.

Results

There were 142, 231, and 139 patients in the open, midline, and Pfannenstiel groups, respectively. All three groups were comparable with respect to age, gender, steroid use, diabetes, number of patients with malignancy, and duration of follow-up. The Pfannenstiel group had a higher mean BMI (p = 0.015) and the open group had a higher rate of wound infection (28.2%) compared to the other groups. Incidence of incisional hernia was similar for the open and midline groups (19.7 and 16%, p = 0.36). At a mean follow-up of 17.5 months, not a single patient with a Pfannenstiel incision developed an incisional hernia (p < 0.001). BMI (p = 0.019), follow-up (p < 0.001), and Pfannenstiel incision (p < 0.001) were found to be predictors (protectors) of incisional hernia on multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

A Pfannenstiel incision is associated with the lowest rate of incisional hernia and should be the incision of choice for hand assistance and specimen extraction in minimally invasive colorectal resections wherever applicable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Duepree HJ, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP, Fazio VW (2003) Does means of access affect the incidence of small bowel obstruction and ventral hernia after bowel resection? Laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg 197:177–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Laurent C, Leblanc F, Bretagnol F, Capdepont M, Rullier E (2008) Long-term wound advantages of the laparoscopic approach in rectal cancer. Br J Surg 95:903–908

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Aalbers AGJ, Biere SSAY, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bemelman WA (2008) Hand-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted approach in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 22:1769–1780

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ringley C, Lee YK, Iqbal A, Bocharev V, Sasson A, McBride CL, Thompson JS, Vitamvas ML, Oleynikov D (2007) Comparison of conventional laparoscopic and hand-assisted oncologic segmental colonic resection. Surg Endosc 21(12):2137–2141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nakajima K, Lee SW, Cocilovo C, Foglia C, Sonoda T, Milsom JW (2004) Laparoscopic total colectomy: hand-assisted vs standard technique. Surg Endosc 18(4):582–586

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Marcello PW, Fleshman JW, Milsom JW, Read TE, Arnell TD, Birnbaum EH, Feingold DL, Lee SW, Mutch MG, Sonoda T, Yan Y, Whelan RL (2008) Hand-assisted laparoscopic vs. laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 51(6):818–826

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tjandra JJ, Chan MK, Yeh CH (2008) Laparoscopic vs. hand-assisted ultralow anterior resection: a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 51(1):26–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kang JC, Chung MH, Chao PC, Yeh CC, Hsiao CW, Lee TY, Jao SW (2004) Hand-assisted laparoscopic colectomy vs open colectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 18(4):577–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bucknall TE, Cok PJ, Ellis H (1982) Burst abdomen and incisional hernia: a prospective study of 1129 major laparotomies. Br Med J 284(6320):931–933

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mudge M, Hughes LE (1985) Incisional hernia: a ten year prospective study of incidence and attitudes. Br J Surg 72:70–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Read RC, Yoder G (1989) Recent trends in management of incisional herniation. Arch Surg 124:485–488

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Santora TA, Rosalyn JJ (1993) Incisional hernia. Surg Clin North Am 73:557–570

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Millikan KW (2003) Incisional hernia repair. Surg Clin North Am 83:1223–1234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Franchi M, Ghezzi F, Buttarelli M, Tateo S, Balestreri D, Bolis P (2001) Incisional hernia in gynecologic oncology patients: a 10-year study. Obstet Gynecol 97:696–700

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Israelsson LA, Jonsson T (1994) Closure of midline laparotomy incisions with polydioxanone and nylon: the importance of suture technique. Br J Surg 81:1606–1608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Musella M, Milone F, Chello M, Angelini P, Jovino R (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging and abdominal wall hernias in aortic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 193:392–395

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Seiler CM, Bruckner T, Diener MK, Papyan A, Golcher H, Seidlmayer C, Franck A, Kieser M, Büchler MW, Knaebel HP (2009) Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 249(4):576–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilson MS, Ellis H, Menzies D, Moran BJ, Parker MC, Thompson JN (1999) A review of the management of small bowel obstruction. Members of the Surgical and Clinical Adhesions Research Study (SCAR). Ann R Coll Surg Engl 81(5):320–328

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ellis H, Gajraj H, George CD (1983) Incisional hernias: when do they occur? Br J Surg 70:290–291

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lauter DM, Froines EJ (2001) Initial experience with 150 cases of laparoscopic assisted colectomy. Am J Surg 181(5):398–403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Winslow ER, Fleshman JW, Birnbaum EH, Brunt LM (2002) Wound complications of laparoscopic vs open colectomy. Surg Endosc 16:1420–1425

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sonoda T, Pandey S, Trencheva K, Lee S, Milsom J (2009) Long-term complication of hand assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy. J Am Coll Surg 208:62–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Halm JA, Lip H, Schmitz PI, Jeekel J (2009) Incisional hernia after upper abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial of midline versus transverse incision. Hernia 13:275–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Grantcharov TP, Rosenberg J (2001) Vertical compared with transverse incisions in abdominal surgery. Eur J Surg 167:260–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Singh R, Omiccioli A, Hegge S, McKinley C (2008) Does the extraction-site location in laparoscopic colorectal surgery have an impact on incisional hernia rates? Surg Endsoc 22:1596–2600

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bruger JW, van’t Riet M, Jeekel J (2002) Abdominal incisions: techniques and postoperative complications. Scand J Surg 91:315–321

    Google Scholar 

  27. Luijendijk RW, Jeekel J, Storm RK, Schutte PJ, Hop WC, Drogendijk AC, Huikeshoven FJ (1997) The low transverse Pfannenstiel incision and the prevalence of incisional hernia and nerve entrapment. Ann Surg 225(4):365–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Biswas KD (1973) Why not Pfannenstiel’s incision? Obstet Gynecol 41:303–307

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. de Groot HA, Jeeva MA, Gunston KD (1983) Morbidity after total abdominal hysterectomy. S Afr Med J 63:515–516

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pietrantoni M, Parsons MT, O’Brien WF, Collins E, Knuppel RA, Spellacy WN (1992) Peritoneal closure or non-closure at cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 77:293–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hetzel H, Bichler A, Geir W, Dapunt O (1979) Sectio Caesarea: Pfannenstiel- oder Längsschnitt? Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol 183:128–135

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Daye SS, Barone JE, Lincer RM, Blabey RC, Smego DR (1993) Pfannenstiel syndrome. Am Surg 59:459–460

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Orr JW, Orr PJ, Holimon JL (1995) Radical hysterectomy: does the type of incision matter? Am J Obstet Gynecol 173:399–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Redman JF, Barthold JS (1996) Experience with ileal augmentation cystoplasty using a short Pfannenstiel incision. J Urol 155:1726–1727

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Ms. Nancy Davis, MA, Director of Research Services, Department of Research, Advocate Health Care, for her contribution with the statistics for this study.

Disclosures

Leela Prasad has received an honorarium from Intuitive Surgical; an honorarium and fellowship grant from Ethicon; and an honorarium and fellowship grant from Covidien. Ashwin deSouza has received salary from Ethicon while pursuing a Fellowship in Laparoscopic and Minimally Invasive Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago. Bastian Domajnko, John Park, Slawomir Marecik and Herand Abcarian have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, 840 S. Wood St., Suite 518(E) CSB, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Ashwin deSouza, John Park, Slawomir Marecik, Leela Prasad & Herand Abcarian

  2. Rochester Colon & Rectal Surgeons, P.C., Rochester, NY, 14626, USA

    Bastian Domajnko

  3. Department of Surgery, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL, 60068, USA

    John Park, Slawomir Marecik & Leela Prasad

  4. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, John H. Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Leela Prasad & Herand Abcarian

Authors
  1. Ashwin deSouza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bastian Domajnko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Slawomir Marecik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leela Prasad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Herand Abcarian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashwin deSouza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

deSouza, A., Domajnko, B., Park, J. et al. Incisional hernia, midline versus low transverse incision: what is the ideal incision for specimen extraction and hand-assisted laparoscopy?. Surg Endosc 25, 1031–1036 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1309-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1309-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation