Complex abdominal wall reconstruction: A comparison of flap and mesh closure

Objective To analyze a series of patients treated for recurrent or chronic abdominal wall hernias and determine a treatment protocol for defect recons truction. Summary Background Data Complex or recurrent abdominal wall defects may be the result of a failed prior attempt at closure, trauma, infection, radiati on necrosis, or tumor resection. The use of prosthetic mesh as a fascial su bstitute or reinforcement has been widely reported. In wounds with unstable soft tissue coverage, however, the use of prosthetic mesh poses an increas ed risk for extrusion or infection, and vascularized autogenous tissue may be required to achieve herniorrhaphy and stable coverage. Methods Patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction for 106 recurrent or complex defects (104 patients) were retrospectively analyzed. For each patient, hernia etiology, size and location, average time present, techniqu e of reconstruction, and postoperative results, including recurrence and co mplication rates, were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups base d on defect components: Type I defects with intact or stable skin coverage over hernia defect, and Type II defects with unstable or absent skin covera ge over hernia defect. The defects were also assigned to one of the followi ng zones based on primary defect location to assist in the selection and ev aluation of their treatment: Zone 1A, upper midline; Zone IB, lower midline ; Zone 2, upper quadrant; Zone 3, lower quadrant. Results A majority of the defects (68%) were incisional hernias. Of 50 Type I defects, 10 (20%) were repaired directly, 28 (56%) were repaired with me sh only, and 12 (24%) required flap reconstruction. For the 56 Type II defe cts reconstructed, flaps were used in the majority of patients (n = 48; 80% ). The overall complication and recurrence rates for the series were 29% an d 8%, respectively. Conclusions For Type I hernias with stable skin coverage, intraperitoneal p lacement of Prolene mesh is preferred, and has not been associated with vis ceral complications or failure of hernia repair. For Type II defects, the u se of flaps is advisable, with tensor fascia lata representing the flap of choice, particularly in the lower abdomen. Rectus advancement procedures ma y be used for well-selected midline defects of either type. The concept of tissue expansion to increase both the fascial dimensions of the flap and zo nes safely reached by flap transposition is introduced. Overall failure is often is due to primary closure under tension, extraperitoneal placement of mesh, flap use for inappropriate zone, or technical error in flap use. Wit h use of the proposed algorithm based on defect analysis and location, abdo minal wall reconstruction has been achieved in 92% of patients with complex abdominal defects.