Home Current issue Ahead of print Search About us Editorial board Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 36  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 174-180

Primary ventral hernia repair: mini-component separation technique versus onlay mesh repair

Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Mostafa B Abdelwahab
Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, 13518
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1110-1121.204533

Rights and Permissions

Introduction Although with the increased frequency of ventral herniorrhaphy use, it is somewhat surprising that the question of optimal choice of repair is not yet settled. The published data of numerous studies revealed results with major differences. Objectives The aim of this study to compare the results of mini-component separation technique (mini-CST) repair of primary ventral hernia cases with onlay mesh repair. Patients and methods This prospective randomized controlled study was carried out on 64 consecutive adult patients with primary ventral hernia. Patients were divided randomly into two groups. Group A was treated using mini-component separation technique. Group B was treated using suture repair reinforced with onlay polypropylene mesh. Results Group A repair demonstrated 9.4% seroma rate and 6.3% surgical site infection rate (SSI), no wound dehiscence, and 3.1% recurrence rate. Group B repair demonstrated 15.6% seroma rate, 25% SSI, 3.1% wound dehiscence, and no recurrence. For seroma rate, infection, wound dehiscence, and recurrence, P values were 0.44, 0.038, 0.31, and 0.31, respectively, between both the group. These results indicate that mesh repair has a small reduction in recurrence rate compared with mini-CST for primary ventral hernias, but an increased risk of SSO (seroma, SSI, and wound dehiscence). Conclusion The repair of primary ventral hernia cases can be made simple without foreign body implantation by holding the concept of CST to allow for tension-free midline fascial closure. We prefer to retain the mesh repair for big defects or complex cases that need either mesh reinforcement or even bridging of the defect.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded50    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal