Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preoperative and Intraoperative Determinants of Incisional Bulge following Retroperitoneal Aortic Repair

  • Published:
Annals of Vascular Surgery

Abstract

Although the left flank retroperitoneal incision is a useful approach for many patients undergoing major aortic reconstruction for aneurysmal and occlusive disease, it has been associated with weakening of the flank muscles, resulting in bulges varying from slight asymmetry to huge hernias. The purpose of this study was to determine if the incidence of this complication correlated with identifiable preoperative or intraoperative factors. Fifty consecutive patients undergoing aortic reconstruction via the retroperitoneal approach were followed for 1 year postoperatively for evidence of disfiguring bulges. Bulges were scored as follows: normal/mild, <1-inch protrusion; moderate, protrusion 1-2 inches; severe, protrusion >2 inches and/or pain or true herniation. Preoperatively, patients were administered a questionnaire to elicit demographic and comorbidity data. Fifty-six percent of patients developed a bulge at 1 year. In 43% of these, the bulge was deemed mild and in 54% moderate. One patient developed a severe bulge. Among preoperative comorbidities, no statistically significant correlations were found on bivariate analysis. However, likelihood ratios for bulge development of 5.5 for renal disease and 3.1 for cancer were demonstrated. Conversely, peripheral vascular disease had a likelihood ratio of 0.21 for bulge formation and emphysema, 0.28. On logistic analysis, incision >15 cm and body mass index (BMI) >23 mg/kg2 were found to correlate strongly with bulge formation (p = 0.003, odds ratio = 9.1, and p = 0.018, odds ratio = 16.9, respectively). Together, these yielded a pseudo r 2 of 0.32. BMI >23 mg/kg2 was found to yield the greatest explanatory power. These same two variables were found to correlate with severity of bulge: p = 0.02 for incision >15 cm and p = 0.006 for BMI >23. Of note, gender, age, and extension of the incision into the interspace were not significant on logistic analysis. Preoperatively, surgeons should warn obese patients and those requiring large incisions for extensive disease of their increased risk for poor healing. Intraoperatively, surgeons should aim to minimize incision length.

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. Grace PA, Bouchier-Hayes D. Infrarenal abdominal aortic disease: a review of the retroperitoneal approach. Br J Surg 1991;78:6–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kirby LB, Rosenthal D, Atkins CP, et al. Comparison between the transabdominal and retroperitoneal approaches for aortic reconstruction in patients at high risk. J Vasc Surg 1999;30:400–406

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sicard GA, Reilly JM, Rubin BG, et al. Transabdominal versus retroperitoneal incision for abdominal aortic surgery. Report of a prospective randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 1995;21:174–183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Darling RC III, Shah DM, Chang BB, Paty PS, Leather RP. Current status of the use of retroperitoneal approach for reconstruction of the aorta and its braches. Ann Surg 1996;224:501–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leather RP, Shah DM, Kaufman JL, Fitzgerald KM, Chang BB, Feustel PJ. Comparative analysis of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal aortic replacement for aneurysm. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1989;168:387–393

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Helsby R, Moosa AR. Aorto-iliac reconstruction with special reference to the extraperitoneal approach. Br J Surg 1975;62:596–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hudson JC, Wurm WH, O’Donnell TF Jr, et al. Hemodynamics and prostacyclin release in the early phases of aortic surgery: comparison of transabdominal and retroperitoneal approaches. J Vasc Surg 1988;7:190–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hioki M, Iedokoro Y, Kawamura J, Yamashita Y, Yoshino N, Oro K. Left retroperitoneal approach using a retractor to repair abdominal aortic aneurysms: a comparison with the transperitoneal approach. Surg Today 2002;32:577–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Holland AJA, Castleden WM, Norman PE, Stacey MC. Incisional hernias are more common in aneurysmal arterial disease. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 1996;12:196–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stevick CA, Long JB, Jamashi B, Nash M. Ventral hernia following abdominal aortic reconstruction. Am Surg 1988;54:287–289

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Adye B, Luna G. Incidence of abdominal wall hernia in aortic surgery. Am J Surg 1998;175:400–402

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lord RS, Crozier JA, Snell J, Meek AC. Transverse abdominal incisions compared with midline incisions for elective infrarenal aortic reconstruction: predisposition to incisional hernia in patients with increased intraoperative blood loss. J Vasc Surg 1994;20:27–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sieunarine K, Lawrence-Brown MMD, Goodman MA. Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches for infrarenal aortic surgery: early and late results. J Cardiovasc Surg 1997;5:71–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rob C. Extraperitoneal approach to the abdominal aorta. Surgery 1963;53:87–89

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Williams GM, Ricotta J, Zinner M, Burdick J. The extended retroperitoneal approach for the treatment of extensive atherosclerosis of the aorta and renal vessels. Surgery 1980;88:846–855

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hall KA, Peters B, Smyth SH, et al. Abdominal wall hernias in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysmal versus aortoiliac occlusive disease. Am J Surg 1995;170:572–576

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Papadimitriou D, Pitoulias G, Papziogas B, et al. Incidence of abdominal wall hernias in patients undergoing aortic surgery for aneurysm or occlusive disease. Vasa 2002;31:111–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bode MK, Soini Y, Melkko J, Satta J, Risteli L, Risteli J. Increased amounts of type III pN-collagen in human abdominal aortic aneurysms: evidence for impaired type III collagen fibrillogenesis. J Vasc Surg 2000;32:1201–1207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bode MK, Mosorin M, Satta J, Risteli L, Juvonen T, Risteli J. Increased amount of type III pN-collagen in AAA when compared with AOD. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2002;23:413–420

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson DW, Edwards TK, Ricketts MH, et al. Multiple defects in type III collagen synthesis are associated with the pathogenesis of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1996;800:216–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Treska V, Topolcan O. Plasma and tissue levels of collagen types I and III markers in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. Int Angiol 2000;19:64–68

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Friedman DW, Boyd CD, Norton P, et al. Increases in type III collagen gene expression and protein synthesis in patients with inguinal hernias. Ann Surg 1993;218:754–760

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Zheng H, Si Z, Kasperk R, et al. Recurrent inguinal hernia: disease of the collagen matrix? World J Surg 2002;26:401–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gardner GP, Josephs LG, Rosca M, Rich J, Woodson J, Menzoian JO. The retroperitoneal incision - an evaluation of postoperative flank “bulge.” Arch Surg 1994;129:753–756

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Nakajima T, Kawazoe K, Komoda K, Sasaki T, Ohsawa S, Kamada T. Midline retroperitoneal versus midline transperitoneal approach for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2000;32:219–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Susanna L. Matsen MD, Teresa A. Krosnick PA-C, Glen S. Roseborough MD, Bruce A. Perler MD, Thomas H. Webb MD, David C. Chang PhD, MPH, MBA & G. Melville Williams MD

  2. Division of Vascular Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Harvey 611, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA

    G. Melville Williams MD

Authors
  1. Susanna L. Matsen MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teresa A. Krosnick PA-C
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Glen S. Roseborough MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bruce A. Perler MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas H. Webb MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David C. Chang PhD, MPH, MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Melville Williams MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Melville Williams MD.

About this article

Cite this article

Matsen, S.L., Krosnick, T.A., Roseborough, G.S. et al. Preoperative and Intraoperative Determinants of Incisional Bulge following Retroperitoneal Aortic Repair. Ann Vasc Surg 20, 183–187 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10016-006-9021-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10016-006-9021-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation