Semin Plast Surg 2018; 32(03): 141-146
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1666801
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Lateral Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Sahil K. Kapur
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
,
Charles E. Butler
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
24 July 2018 (online)

Abstract

Lateral abdominal wall defects, while rare, present a more challenging problem than commonly encountered ventral defects due to the complexity of the anatomy, physiologic forces, and impact of muscle denervation. The lateral abdominal wall encompasses a large surface area ranging from the costal margin superiorly to the iliac crest inferiorly and from the linea semilunaris anteriorly to the paraspinous musculature posteriorly. The ratio of muscle to fascia/aponeurosis is much higher, which makes repair through muscle tissue versus fascia less secure. Furthermore, these defects are subject to asymmetric forces caused by the independent contraction of anterior and posterior muscle units, which lead to unbalanced strain and hernia progression. These features necessitate the use of wide underlay mesh load bearing repairs supported by the static pillars of the abdominal wall. Management can be further complicated when defects extend beyond the defined boundaries, requiring surgical repair to be adapted based on the border structures involved. Primary fascial coaptation may not be as easily accomplished, and therefore careful planning is important to ensure stable coverage of exposed mesh.

 
  • References

  • 1 Fakhry SM, Azizkhan RG. Observations and current operative management of congenital lumbar hernias during infancy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991; 172 (06) 475-479
  • 2 Chatterjee S, Nam R, Fleshner N, Klotz L. Permanent flank bulge is a consequence of flank incision for radical nephrectomy in one half of patients. Urol Oncol 2004; 22 (01) 36-39
  • 3 Matsen SL, Krosnick TA, Roseborough GS. , et al. Preoperative and intraoperative determinants of incisional bulge following retroperitoneal aortic repair. Ann Vasc Surg 2006; 20 (02) 183-187
  • 4 Nanni G, Tondolo V, Citterio F. , et al. Comparison of oblique versus hockey-stick surgical incision for kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 2005; 37 (06) 2479-2481
  • 5 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 (07) 753-756
  • 6 Purnell CA, Park E, Turin SY, Dumanian GA. Postoperative flank defects, hernias, and bulges: a reliable method for repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (03) 994-1001
  • 7 Baumann DP, Butler CE. Lateral abdominal wall reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 2012; 26 (01) 40-48
  • 8 Pezeshk RA, Pulikkottil BJ, Bailey SH. , et al. An evidence based model for the successful treatment of flank and lateral abdominal wall hernias. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (02) 377-385
  • 9 Salameh JR, Salloum EJ. Lumbar incisional hernias: diagnostic and management dilemma. JSLS 2004; 8 (04) 391-394
  • 10 Elkwood AI, Kozusko SD, Patel TR. , et al. The bony anchoring reinforcement system (BARS) for flank hernia repair: a versatile technique. Eur J Plast Surg 2017; 40: 315-322
  • 11 Chao AH, Neimanis SA, Chang DW, Lewis VO, Hanasono MM. Reconstruction after internal hemipelvectomy: outcomes and reconstructive algorithm. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 74 (03) 342-349
  • 12 Butler CE. The role of bioprosthetics in abdominal wall reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 2006; 33 (02) 199-211 , v–vi,v–vi
  • 13 Jin J, Rosen MJ, Blatnik J. , et al. Use of acellular dermal matrix for complicated ventral hernia repair: does technique affect outcomes?. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 205 (05) 654-660