4.6 Article

Risk Factors for Early-Occurring and Late-Occurring Incisional Hernias After Primary Laparotomy for Ovarian Cancer

Journal

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 125, Issue 2, Pages 407-413

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000610

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program through National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1TR000427]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a cohort of gynecologic oncology patients to discover risk factors for early- and late-occurring incisional hernia after midline incision for ovarian cancer. METHODS: We collected retrospective data from patients undergoing primary laparotomy for ovarian cancer at the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics from 2001 to 2007. Patient characteristics and potential risk factors for hernia formation were noted. Physical examination, abdominal computerized assisted tomography scans, or both were used to detect hernias 1 year after surgery (early hernia) and 2 years after surgery (late hernia). RESULTS: There were 265 patients available for the 1-year analysis and 189 patients for the 2-year analysis. Early and late hernia formation occurred in 9.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-12%) and an additional 7.9% (95% CI 4.1-12%) of patients, respectively. Using multiple logistic regression, poor nutritional status (albumin less than 3 g/dL) and suboptimal cytoreductive surgery (1 cm or greater residual tumor) were significantly associated with the formation of early incisional hernia after midline incision (P<.001 for both). Late hernia formation was associated only with age 65 years or older (P=.01). CONCLUSION: The formation of early incisional hernias after midline incision is associated with poor nutritional status and suboptimal cytoreductive surgery, whereas late hernia formation is associated with advanced age.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available