117© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 K. A. LeBlanc (ed.), Laparoscopic and Robotic Incisional Hernia Repair, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90737-6_9

Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Techniques of Minimally Invasive Components Separation for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Zachary Sanford, Shyam S. Jayaraman, H. Reza Zahiri, and Igor Belyansky

Introduction

The last two decades have proven to be a sig-nificant period of evolution in the field of abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). A vari-ety of “components separation” (CS) tech-niques have been described and shown to be useful in addressing complex abdominal cases associated with large defects and loss of abdominal domain. Originally reported by Ramirez et  al. in 1990 as a rectus abdominis advancement flap with primary tissue closure in the midline, the technique described surgical division of contributions by the external oblique muscle to the linea semilunaris and division of the posterior rectus sheath [1, 2]. The external oblique muscle release is also referred to as anterior component separation.

A disadvantage of traditional open anterior CS is aggressive subcutaneous flap elevation to expose the external oblique muscles. This results in compromise of periumbilical perforators and is associated with an increase in wound morbid-ity. Accordingly, the motivation arose to achieve perforator sparing anterior CS, thus decreasing the wound morbidity associated with large sub-cutaneous flaps. Lowe et  al. have described the

separation of anterior components through a min-imally invasive technique dividing the external oblique after the creation of a space by an endo-scopic balloon dissector [3]. To follow, several authors have described various minimally inva-sive approaches to CS with the goal of gaining direct access to the lateral abdominal wall with-out large skin flaps and minimizing subcutaneous dead space while preserving the rectus abdominis perforator vessels [4–7].

The minimally invasive anterior CS is still associated with possible need for an open lapa-rotomy approach as well as placement of mesh in the intra-abdominal cavity that requires an expensive barrier coated mesh as well as pene-trating fixation to secure it in place [1, 3, 4]. Consequently, some of the potential issues asso-ciated with intraperitoneal mesh placement (IPOM) are visceral adhesions that in 13% of cases can be clinically significant in future sur-geries [8]. In addition, penetrating fixation that is required in IPOM placement has been previously described to be associated with presence of chronic pain [9, 10].

More recently, the transversus abdominis mus-cle release (TAR) technique has been described by Novitsky et al. focusing on division of the poste-rior rectus sheath, posterior lamella of the internal oblique and transversus abdominis muscle as an alternative myocutaneous advancement flap [11]. This unique approach enables the repair of a vari-ety of complex and atypical defect locations while

Z. Sanford · S. S. Jayaraman · H. Reza Zahiri I. Belyansky (*) Department of Surgery, Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, MD, USAe-mail: ibelyansky@aahs.org

9

118

in one step performing myocutaneous advance-ment in addition to developing the retromuscular space for a large mesh placement without the dis-ruption of subcutaneous perforators. The retro-muscular space developed can extend from one midaxillary line to the other and from the subxi-phoid space down to the space of Retzius, bor-dered posteriorly by an autologous posterior layer that serves as a barrier separating the intra-abdom-inal viscera from mesh material, of which we pre-fer to use a non-coated polypropylene macroporous medium weight mesh. Having the ability to sand-wich the mesh between two layers also enabled us to safely move away from use of penetrating fixa-tion, improving quality of life (QOL) outcomes without increasing recurrence rates [10, 12].

Open posterior CS was demonstrated to have fewer wound morbidities and risk of mesh expo-sure to the extracorporeal environment than ante-rior CS [11]. Unfortunately, wound morbidity in open TAR still ranges from 17 to 29% and the open nature of this intervention is associated with an average length of hospital stay of 6 days [13]. Our current practice is heavily influenced by the following principles:

• Paradigm shift towards defect closure• Eliminating penetrating mesh fixation without

compromising the hernia repair• Using uncoated mesh and placing it outside of

the abdominal cavity• Minimally Invasive Surgical (MIS) approach

when possible

Combining the benefits of a minimally inva-sive approach with the TAR procedure, a laparo-scopic approach to posterior component separation (eTEP) has been described by our group in 2015 [5]. This approach underwent sev-eral modifications and initial multicenter experi-ences, with eTEP access for retromuscular repair recently reported and published [14]. In this chapter we will describe the principles and steps to the eTEP access for Rives Stoppa retrorectus repair and discuss the decisions necessary as to when to perform selective TAR.

Preoperative Planning and Considerations

All prospective MIS AWR candidates undergo standard history, physical exam, and basic labo-ratory testing to ensure they are appropriately selected for major surgery, with emphasis placed on screening for relative and absolute contraindi-cations to the eTEP approach for incisional and ventral herniae (Table  9.1). Attention to defect size, past or current wound infections, stoma, ostomies, redundant skin, and contour abnormal-ities are critical in establishing suitable patient selection and the proper operative approach for hernioplasty. It is imperative that past medical and surgical records be accurate and thoroughly reviewed for prior interventions and to interro-gate for the presence of potentially aberrant anat-omy or mesh fixation devices in the case of patients presenting with recurrent hernia disease. An up-to-date computed tomography study of the abdomen and pelvis is recommended for effec-tive preoperative planning per SAGES guidelines [15]. This assists preoperative planning through assessment of the size of hernia defect, extent of loss of domain, and the components of the abdominal wall available for reconstruction. Very thick oblique muscles can reduce compliance of the abdominal wall and compromise efforts to reapproximate the edges of the defect back together [5]. In addition, age-appropriate cancer screening is conducted including a screening colonoscopy for patients over the age of 50 and an updated Pap smear ± HPV cotesting in women over 21 years of age.

Table 9.1 Absolute and relative contraindications to eTEP approach

Relative AbsolutePrevious incision extending from xiphoid process to the pubic bone

Active mesh infection

Loss of domain Presence of fistula

Dystrophic or ulcerated skinExtensive intra-abdominal adhesions

Z. Sanford et al.

119

On initial encounter all major comorbidities must be addressed by means of a multidisci-plinary approach before proceeding to the operating room. Emphasis is placed on assessing cardiopulmonary and endocrine systems as they pose the greatest risk for intraoperative morbidity and mortality. Diabetic patients are to have their HbA1C levels managed below 7.4 with estab-lished goals for postoperative glycemic control. Morbidly obese individuals must achieve a target body mass index (BMI) of less than 40 with any patient of a BMI greater than 35 consulted by either a registered dietician or nutritionist to begin a comprehensive weight loss program. Patients with a positive smoking history must demonstrate cessation for at least 4 weeks prior to surgical intervention and may benefit from consultation with substance abuse counselors. Nicotine levels are confirmed with serum coti-nine levels in the preoperative area the day of sur-gery to proceed only in those testing negative for nicotine derivatives.

It is important to discuss with the patient likely outcomes and possible complications of surgery in order to establish a reasonable series of expectations postoperatively. Despite the min-imally invasive nature of these procedures, patients may still experience significant amounts of pain requiring inpatient management. Possible complications including seroma, hematoma, deep or superficial abscesses, bowel injury, and their respective management options must be presented. In the event of complex revisional pro-cedures, the possibility for conversion to open surgery is typically higher and warrants addi-tional discussion. Additionally, patients with active infection should be treated with properly selected antimicrobial therapy with resolution of the infection before surgery. Preoperative antibi-otics should be properly selected and dosed according to hospital protocol [15, 16]. We rec-ommend routine administration of subcutaneous heparin for DVT prophylaxis in our patient popu-lation, beginning prior to the induction of anes-thesia and administered throughout the typical duration of the procedure [17, 18]. A VTE

surgical risk model such as the Caprini score method can be used to tailor VTE prophylaxis to the specific patient. Sequential compression devices (SCD) or foot pumps should be used when available.

Operating Room Setup and Patient Positioning

Patients are positioned supine with both arms tucked to their sides. After induction of anesthe-sia, Foley catheter is routinely placed. The oper-ating room table is flexed with the legs extend down at a minimum of 30° to afford the surgeon and assistant greater instrument range of motion (Fig. 9.1). Failure to sufficiently flex the operat-ing table will result in surgeon’s hand collision with the patient’s body while dissecting and suturing the defects.

eTEP Access

The enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) access approach was previously described for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair by Dr. Jorge Daes [19]. This approach introduced the notion that the extraperitoneal space is limitless once the confluence of arcuate line and semilunar line are taken down. We have adopted this

Fig. 9.1 Positioning of the patient for laparoscopic CS.  Patient is in Trendelenburg position with hips extended. Bed flexion is best avoided

9 Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Techniques of Minimally Invasive Components Separation

120

technique for repair of ventral and incisional her-niae [4, 14, 19]. The eTEP access approach relies on dissection in the naturally occurring retromus-cular spaces. Typically, dissection is initiated in one of the retrorectus spaces and then crosses over to the contralateral side, thus joining the two spaces into one large operative region. The key advantages of this approach are:

• The rapid creation of an extraperitoneal domain.

• The technique may enable an entirely extra-peritoneal approach.

• If the intra-abdominal cavity is entered, safe adhesiolysis can be performed.

• Improved tolerance of pneumoperitoneum.• Dynamic port setup that can be adjusted based

on the location of the defect.

Prior to incision, we suggest appreciating and marking out relevant anatomy at skin level. This includes the xiphoid process, bilateral subcostal margins, symphysis pubis, linea alba, and semi-lunar lines. Preoperative CT scan and physical exam are used to facilitate the marking of these landmarks. Positioning of the surgeon, monitor, and trocars is dependent on the location of the hernia defect and decision where to crossover. Monitors are placed at the head of the bed with trocar sites on the lower abdomen when address-ing an upper midline hernia defect and inverted in instances of lower midline hernia defects.

Upper Midline Defect

When dealing with upper midline defects we pre-fer to perform the crossover below the level of the umbilicus, developing preperitoneal and retromus-cular spaces that have not been previously vio-lated. Figure 9.2 demonstrates the port position for upper midline defects. The first incision is made 2 cm below a horizontal line drawn through umbi-licus just medial to the right linea semilunaris. The anterior rectus sheath is identified and incised sharply. Single site balloon dissector is used to develop the right retrorectus space in cephalad and caudal directions. It is critical to avoid over-infla-

tion which may rupture the linea semilunaris and consequently injure the rectus abdominis muscle. In addition, special care should be given to appre-ciating the inferior epigastric vessels that travel parallel and medial to linea semilunaris in the vicinity of the #1 port. Once the space of Retzius is developed, ports #2 and #3 are placed under direct vision in the lower abdomen. The site of port #3 can also be used to pass the balloon space-maker in a cephalad direction to develop the left retrorectus space. Thus, even before any initiation of sharp dissection the retromuscular space sur-rounding the hernia defect is completely dissected bluntly with the balloon space-maker.

A 30° scope is placed through port #3 after which we proceed with division of the medial contributions of the posterior rectus sheath to the linea alba bilaterally from caudal to cephalad direction. In the middle we try to preserve the preperitoneal contributions to the posterior layer which are made up of the falciform and umbilical ligaments. In such a fashion the division of poste-rior rectus sheath and preservation of falciform

Fig. 9.2 Port positioning for upper midline defects. The balloon dissector is placed in Port #1. Ports #1 and #2 in red circles are working ports. Port #3 in yellow is the cam-era port

Z. Sanford et al.

121

ligament and umbilical ligaments allows us to join the right and the left retrorectus spaces together with midline preperitoneal space (Fig. 9.3).

Following the dissection in these planes we then anticipate to encounter the neck of the her-nia sac. In true incisional herniae, the layers sur-rounding the neck of the sack can be thoroughly fused together and difficult to differentiate. A recent preoperative CT scan, therefore, is an invaluable aid in identification of the hernia and its contents. An attempt may be made in some cases to reduce the entirety of the sac by separat-ing it from its distal attachments, however this is not often attempted. We frequently give consider-ation to sharply opening the peritoneal layer just proximal to the neck of the sac to reduce visceral contents under direct visualization and perform limited adhesiolysis (Fig. 9.4). Any defects in the posterior layer can be fixed with 3-0 suture. Once the hernia contents are reduced, retromuscular dissection commences with release of the medial aspect of the posterior rectus sheath and con-cludes just below the level of the xiphoid process.

Lower Midline Defects

For a right-handed surgeon, we found that lower midline defects are easier to address by initiating

the dissection in the upper portion of left retro-rectus space. Figure 9.5 demonstrates the typical port position that we chose to use for this approach. Balloon dissector is used at port posi-tion #1 to develop the left retrorectus space, fol-lowed by direct visualization for placement of port #2 into the developed space with an optional port #3. Blunt dissection in the left retrorectus space is performed in a caudal direction and the pubis is identified. As the upper midline has not previously been violated above the level of umbi-licus, the medial aspect of the left posterior rectus sheath is incised and the preperitoneal space entered just superficial to falciform ligament (Fig.  9.6). The right posterior rectus sheath is

Fig. 9.3 View of the retrorectus space. After crossing over and dissection, the retrorectus spaces on both sides are combined into one large retrorectus space. This falciform ligament can be seen below

Fig. 9.4 Sharp opening of the peritoneal layer proximal to the neck of the hernia sac, allowing for reduction of visceral contents under direct visualization and limited adhesiolysis

9 Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Techniques of Minimally Invasive Components Separation

122

identified and its medial aspect incised and released in a cephalad to caudal direction fol-lowed by blunt dissection in the right retrorectus space (Fig.  9.7). Port #4 is then placed under direct vision through the upper aspect of right rectus abdominis muscle which is then used as the camera port. The retrorectus dissection is car-ried out in the caudal direction completing bilat-eral release of the posterior rectus sheathes.

When encountering the hernia sac we try to sharply dissect the distal attachments, thus mobi-lizing it downward. Alternatively, the sac can be sharply entered and laparoscopic adhesiolysis performed as needed.

Transversus Abdominis Release

For more complex defects that require large mesh placement, the transversus abdominis release (TAR) procedure is added [20, 21]. We have found that incorporation of the TAR is beneficial in cases with wide (>10 cm) defects, narrow (<5 cm) retrorectus spaces, or when dealing with a poorly compliant abdominal wall. Any defects in the pos-terior layer are closed with 2-0 absorbable suture. The abdominal wall defect is primarily closed using 0 barbed suture in running fashion, while pneumoperitoneum is dropped to 8 mmHg.

For defects wider than 10 cm, primary fascial closure can rarely be achieved under physiologic tension unless additional CS in the form of l-TAR is added to the procedure. The edge of the cut posterior rectus sheath (PRS) on one side is retracted medially and a thin, almost transparent layer of connective tissue that covers the trans-versus fibers is identified as the posterior lamina of the internal oblique muscle and incised with hook electrocautery, thus exposing the transver-sus abdominis muscle fibers (Fig. 9.8). Care must be taken to stay medial to the perforating nerves and vessels at the linea semilunaris to maintain functional segmental innervation to the rectus

Fig. 9.6 Medial aspect of the left posterior rectus sheath is incised and the preperitoneal space entered just superfi-cial to falciform ligament

Fig. 9.7 The right posterior rectus sheath is identified and its medial aspect incised then released in a cephalad to caudal direction followed by blunt dissection in the right retrorectus space

Fig. 9.5 Port placement for a right-handed surgeon addressing a lower midline defects. We initiate the dissec-tion in the upper portion of left retrorectus space. Balloon dissector is used at port position #1 to develop the left retrorectus space, followed by direct visualization for placement of port #2 into the developed space with an optional port #3. Port #4 is used as a camera port

Z. Sanford et al.

123

(Fig.  9.9). Hook cautery is used to elevate and transect the exposed transversus fibers, revealing the glistening transversalis fascia underneath. This is continued from cephalad to caudad until the transversalis fascia is seen as a glistening line extending the entire craniocaudal length of the abdominal wall. Blunt dissection is now used to develop the plane just deeper to the transversus muscle fibers and superficial to the transversalis fascia resulting in a retromuscular preperitoneal plane, thereby achieving the TAR (Fig.  9.10). The plane can be extended in the lateral direction as far as the mid axillary line. A unilateral TAR can achieve as much as 7  cm of medial fascial mobilization at the level of the umbilicus. Bilateral TAR can be performed as needed.

Closure

Posterior LayerThe edges of the PRS are sutured together in the midline with 2-0 absorbable or barbed suture starting near the xiphoid process running cau-dally. Starting at the dome of the bladder the sur-geon and assistant switch positions and suture is run cranially, meeting in the middle where the two sutures are tied together.

Anterior LayerPneumoperitoneum is dropped to 8–10  mmHg. The defect being closed is at the top of the moni-tor and is sutured “upside down” with back- handed needle driving. A 0 barbed suture is used for this closure due to technical ease of use afforded in this situation. If a large subcutaneous sac is present, one or more bites of the sac are included in the suture line for plication in order to reduce the likelihood of developing a postopera-tive seroma (Fig. 9.11). With the previously per-formed posterior CS, the defect edges should come together in a reasonably tension-free fash-ion. The defect is closed with V-lock suture, com-pleted with four or five throws run in a backwards fashion.

Mesh PlacementOnce both anterior and posterior fascial layers are closed, the mesh is deployed in the

Cut portion of posterior lamina of Internal oblique

Exposed Transversus Abdominis fibers

Fig. 9.8 The cut edge of PRS is retracted medially revealing the posterior lamina of the internal oblique mus-cle, a thin layer of connective tissue covering. Once iden-tified and incised with hook electrocautery the transversus abdominis muscle fibers can be appreciated

Neurovascular bundles

Fig. 9.9 When incising the lateral edge of the PRS sheath to expose the transversus abdominis, care must be taken to prevent injury to the neurovascular bundles near the linea semilunaris

9 Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Techniques of Minimally Invasive Components Separation

124

retromuscular sublay position. The developed retromuscular space is measured for appropriate mesh size selection. Our preference is medium weight macroporous polypropylene mesh which is deployed through our 12 mm trocar (Fig. 9.12). There is no need for antiadhesion barriers as there now exists an autologous barrier between the mesh and viscera, a significant advantage of the sublay position. Mesh placement in the retro-muscular space has allowed for the discontinua-tion of aggressive penetrating fixation techniques with transfascial sutures, transitioning first to fibrin glue and, more recently, to complete cessa-tion of mesh fixation as our data illustrates pene-trating fixation is associated with higher incidence of chronic pain without the added benefit of low-

ered rates of recurrence. Pneumoperitoneum is released under direct vision, assuring the mesh is lying flat and wrinkle-free between the posterior and anterior layers.

Formerly, we once placed drains just superfi-cial to the mesh in all repair cases. We are now more selective with drain placement and do not utilize it for most patients. To date, we have not observed an increase in wound morbidity as a result.

Transabdominal Approach

Alternatively, traditional laparoscopic transab-dominal approach can be used. Standard

Posterior Side of Rectus Abdominis

Cut portion of Transversus Abdominis Fibers

Transversalis fascia

Fig. 9.10 The transversalis fascia is separated from the transversus abdominis by blunt dissection achieving TAR

Fig. 9.11 Closure of the anterior layer. A 0 barbed suture is used in a back-handed fashion with an “upside down” view to take bites of the edges of the defect while including the sac (if a large subcutaneous portion is present) in between to reduce the chance of postoperative seroma

Z. Sanford et al.

125

laparoscopic entry to the peritoneal cavity can be achieved and adhesions taken down. The PRS is then incised just lateral to the defect or the linea alba. Dissection can proceed from there as we described in l-TAR originally, prior to our adop-tion of the eTEP access approach [5].

Postoperative Management

After recovery from anesthesia, patients are transferred from the PACU for admission to the wards or alternatively discharged to home as determined by the complexity of the surgery. Those that underwent an eTEP access Rives Stoppa repair (retrorectus mesh placement) are typically discharged home the same day. Diet is advanced as tolerated and patients are encour-aged to ambulate as early and often as possible to prevent postoperative ileus. The average length of stay at our center following TAR via the eTEP access approach is approximately 1–2  days. Prolonged postoperative ileus, although uncom-mon, is the primary cause for length of hospital stay.

Immediately following surgery, pain is con-trolled with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) devices, substituted the following morning to oral analgesics. The minimally invasive approach has allowed us to significantly reduce depen-dence on PCA and associated large volumes of narcotics for postoperative analgesia.

Patients are provided incentive spirometry (IS) to assist in their pulmonary toilet and instructed to use these devices ten times per hour while awake to minimize any respiratory complications from splinting. Sequential com-pression devices (SCD) are placed and subcuta-neous unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin is used for DVT prophylaxis until the patient is ambulating. Abdominal binders are offered to all patients for their psychological benefit and are advantageous in promoting early ambulation [22, 23]. Drain(s), when used, are left in place until their output is <30 cc per day.

Patients are discharged from the hospital once they are sufficiently ambulating, tolerate oral intake, have a return of bowel function, and toler-ate pain control without the need for intravenous medications. Typically, patients are seen 4 weeks following surgery for their first postoperative clinic visit; however, visits are scheduled sooner if they are discharged with a drain in place.

Future Directions

Controversies abound in the ventral hernia litera-ture regarding the best anatomical approach, ideal mesh material, and the best plane for pros-thetic placement. Better definiton of indications, contraindications and complication rates for each approach and further refinement of techniques are avenues for future research that will continue

Fig. 9.12 Placement of a medium weight macroporous polypropylene mesh deployed through the 12 mm trocar. There is no need for antiadhesion barriers as there now exists an autologous barrier between the mesh and viscera

9 Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Techniques of Minimally Invasive Components Separation

126

to improve care for these complex patients with major hernia disease.

On the subject of minimally invasive surgical techniques, robotics deserves special mention. Increasing case volumes and ergonomic chal-lenges of laparoscopic surgery pose significant physical strain on surgeons, potentially leading to chronic pain and earlier or more frequent burn out for experienced surgeons [24]. Robotic surgery allows for an increased degree of free-dom with more elegant technical maneuvering while offering improved ergonomics and comfort to the operating surgeon. Nevertheless, many questions remain unanswered on the subject of robotic- assisted surgery, including its impact on operative and postoperative costs [25]. Data on comparative outcomes for ventral hernia repair is scarce, with less than a handful of studies cur-rently in the literature. This topic is better addressed in a different chapter of this text.

Prospective large-scale trials are ideal for providing the best quality evidence to compare and contrast different approaches hernia repair. MIS CS is but one field within hernia repair that is still in relative infancy and is as yet not widely practiced. The eTEP access approach to laparo-scopic CS may perhaps lend itself to rapid learn-ing and technical adoption [14]. Although the preliminary data are encouraging, more studies are necessary, particularly on long-term out-comes as it joins the armamentarium of the her-nia surgeon.

References

1. Ramirez OM, Ruas E, Dellon AL. “Components sepa-ration” method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;86(3):519–26.

2. Criss CN, Petro CC, Krpata DM, et  al. Functional abdominal wall reconstruction improves core physiol-ogy and quality-of-life. Surgery. 2014;156(1):176–82.

3. Lowe JB, Garza JR, Bowman JL, Rohrich RJ, Strodel WE.  Endoscopically assisted “components separa-tion” for closure of abdominal wall defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105(2):720–9; quiz 730.

4. Butler CE, Campbell KT.  Minimally invasive com-ponent separation with inlay bioprosthetic mesh (MICSIB) for complex abdominal wall reconstruc-tion. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(3):698–709.

5. Belyansky I, Zahiri HR, Park A. Laparoscopic trans-versus abdominis release, a novel minimally invasive approach to complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Surg Innov. 2016;23(2):134–41.

6. Maas SM, de Vries RS, van Goor H, de Jong D, Bleichrodt RP.  Endoscopically assisted “com-ponents separation technique” for the repair of complicated ventral hernias. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194(3):388–90.

7. Mommers EH, Wegdam JA, Nienhuijs SW, de Vries Reilingh TS.  How to perform the endoscopically assisted components separation technique (ECST) for large ventral hernia repair. Hernia. 2016;20(3):441–7.

8. Chelala E, Barake H, Estievenart J, Dessily M, Charara F, Alle JL. Long-term outcomes of 1326 lapa-roscopic incisional and ventral hernia repair with the routine suturing concept: a single institution experi-ence. Hernia. 2016;20(1):101–10.

9. Carbonell AM, Harold KL, Mahmutovic AJ, et  al. Local injection for the treatment of suture site pain after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Am Surg. 2003;69(8):688–91; discussion 691–2.

10. Colavita PD, Tsirline VB, Belyansky I, et  al. Prospective, long-term comparison of quality of life in laparoscopic versus open ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg. 2012;256(5):714–22; discussion 722–3.

11. Krpata DM, Blatnik JA, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ.  Posterior and open anterior components separations: a comparative analysis. Am J Surg. 2012;203(3):318–22; discussion 322.

12. Weltz ASSA, Zahiri RZ, Schoeneborn A, Park A, Belyansky I. Operative outcomes after open abdomi-nal wall reconstruction with retromuscular mesh fixa-tion using fibrin glue versus transfascial sutures. Am Surg. 2017;83(9):937–42.

13. Martin-Del-Campo LA, Weltz AS, Belyansky I, Novitsky YW. Comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes of robotic versus open transversus abdomi-nis release. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(2):840–5.

14. Belyansky IDJ, Radu VG, Balasu-bramanian R, Zahiri HR, Weltz AS, Sibia US, Park A, Novitsky Y. A novel approach using the enhanced-view totally extraperito-neal (eTEP) technique for laparoscopic retromuscular hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(3):1525–32.

15. Earle D, Roth JS, Saber A, et al. SAGES guidelines for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(8):3163–83.

16. Sanchez-Manuel FJ, Lozano-Garcia J, Seco-Gil JL. Antibiotic prophylaxis for hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2012(2):CD003769.

17. Hull RD, Brant RF, Pineo GF, Stein PD, Raskob GE, Valentine KA.  Preoperative vs postoperative ini-tiation of low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism in patients under-going elective hip replacement. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(2):137–41.

18. Venturi ML, Davison SP, Caprini JA.  Prevention of venous thromboembolism in the plastic surgery patient: current guidelines and recommendations. Aesthet Surg J. 2009;29(5):421–8.

Z. Sanford et al.

127

19. Daes J.  The enhanced view-totally extraperitoneal technique for repair of inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc. Apr 2012;26(4):1187–9.

20. Ghali S, Turza KC, Baumann DP, Butler CE. Minimally invasive component separation results in fewer wound-healing complications than open component separation for large ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(6):981–9.

21. Tandon A, Pathak S, Lyons NJ, Nunes QM, Daniels IR, Smart NJ. Meta-analysis of closure of the fascial defect during laparoscopic incisional and ventral her-nia repair. Br J Surg. 2016;103(12):1598–607.

22. Christoffersen MW, Olsen BH, Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T.  Randomized clinical trial on the post-

operative use of an abdominal binder after laparo-scopic umbilical and epigastric hernia repair. Hernia. 2015;19(1):147–53.

23. Rothman JP, Gunnarsson U, Bisgaard T. Abdominal binders may reduce pain and improve physical func-tion after major abdominal surgery—a systematic review. Dan Med J. 2014;61(11):A4941.

24. Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D.  Patients benefit while surgeons suf-fer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(3):306–13.

25. Higgins RM, Frelich MJ, Bosler ME, Gould JC. Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general sur-gery procedures. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(1):185–92.

9 Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Techniques of Minimally Invasive Components Separation