Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/colon/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96 Risk factors of incisional hernia at the umbilical specimen extraction site in patients with laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Ann Coloproctol > Volume 40(2); 2024 > Article
Original Article
Benign bowel disease
Risk factors of incisional hernia at the umbilical specimen extraction site in patients with laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery
Masatsugu Hiraki1,2orcid, Toshiya Tanaka1orcid, Shinya Azama3orcid, Eiji Sadashima2orcid, Hirofumi Sato1orcid, Shuusuke Miyake1orcid, Kenji Kitahara1orcid
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(2):136-144.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2022.00213.0030
Published online: June 21, 2022

1Department of Surgery, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, Saga, Japan

2Life Science Research Institution, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, Saga, Japan

3Department of Radiology, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, Saga, Japan

Correspondence to: Masatsugu Hiraki, MD, PhD Department of Surgery, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, 400 Nakabaru, Kasemachi, Saga 840-8571, Japan Email: masatsuguhiraki@hotmail.com
• Received: March 29, 2022   • Revised: May 18, 2022   • Accepted: May 20, 2022

© 2024 The Korean Society of Coloproctology

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next
  • 3,527 Views
  • 170 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 4 Crossref
  • 3 Scopus
  • Purpose
    Incisional hernia (IH) is a frequent complication following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The present study investigated the risk factors for IH after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.
  • Methods
    A retrospective study was conducted on 202 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the clinicopathological factors associated with IH.
  • Results
    The overall incidence of IH was 25.7% (52 of 202). The univariate analysis showed that female sex (P=0.004), a high body mass index (P<0.001), noncurrent smoking habit (P=0.043), low level of hemoglobin (P=0.035), high subcutaneous fat area (P<0.001), high visceral fat area (P=0.006), low skeletal muscle area (P=0.001), long distance between the inner edges of the rectus abdominis muscle (P=0.001), long protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site (P<0.001), and lymph node metastasis (P=0.007) were significantly more frequent in the group with IH than in the group without it. The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed an older age (10-year increments: odds ratio [OR], 1.576; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.027–2.419; P=0.037), lymph node metastasis (OR, 2.384; 95% CI, 1.132–5.018; P=0.022) and lengthy protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site (10-mm increments: OR, 5.555; 95% CI, 3.058–10.091; P<0.001) were independent risk factors for IH.
  • Conclusion
    Our findings suggest that older age, lymph node metastasis, and lengthy protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site are risk factors for IH after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. An assessment using these factors before the operation and the implementation of countermeasures might help prevent IH.
Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer has been widely accepted and adopted as a standard surgical option in recent years. Reported benefits of laparoscopic procedures include less pain, early recovery of the bowel function, early ambulation, and a shortened hospital stay [1, 2]. However, even though laparoscopic surgery involves a less severe surgical incision and trauma to the abdominal wall, incisional hernia (IH) after laparoscopic colorectal surgery remains a frequent complication. IH can cause abdominal distension, discomfort, pain, cosmetic complaints, limitation of the activities of daily life and, in rare cases, strangulated hernia requiring an emergency operation.
The incidence of IH after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is reported to be 6% to 15% [39]. Even in cases with a limited, short incision, laparoscopic colorectal surgery was not significantly associated with a reduced incidence of IH in comparison to open surgery [3, 10]. While several risk factors of IH after open colorectal surgery have been identified, those associated with laparoscopic surgery are still being debated. The clinical effect of less-invasive surgery with a laparoscopic approach should be considered and analyzed in a study examining the risk factors of IH.
The present study, therefore, investigated the risk factors for IH in cases of colorectal cancer after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Ethics statement
For this study, the 202 patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence of IH. All patients and their families were informed about the surgical procedure and provided their written consent. Informed broad consent for this study was obtained. The Medical Ethics Committee of Saga Medical Center Koseikan reviewed and approved this study design (No. 21-03-01-03).
Patients
A retrospective study was conducted among 202 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery in a single institution at the Department of Surgery, Saga Medical Center Koseikan (Saga, Japan), between December 2014 and January 2018. The medical records of all patients were reviewed in detail. The inclusion criteria were as follows: primary tumor resection with laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer as elective surgery, extraction of a tumor specimen at the umbilical site, computed tomography (CT) images available for the analysis of the body composition using the Ziostation software program (Ziosoft) and at least 3 years of follow-up. Patients with umbilical hernias before surgery were included. The exclusion criteria were as follows: nonresection of the primary tumor, open surgery and conversion to open surgery, surgery without transumbilical specimen extraction, a history of abdominal surgery at the umbilical site before the surgery, and a history of abdominal surgery during the follow-up period. We excluded cases involving patients with open surgery and conversion to open surgery according to several previous studies of IH after laparoscopic colorectal surgery [79]. In addition, we also excluded cases involving patients with a history of abdominal surgery at the umbilical site before the surgery to investigate the relationship between the preoperative presence of umbilical hernia and the postoperative occurrence of IH, because the preoperative presence of umbilical hernia and IH are similar conditions. A total of 69 patients with a history of abdominal surgery at the non-umbilical site before the surgery were included as follows, including duplicate cases: 43 cases of appendectomy, 19 cases of obstetrics and gynecological surgery (uterus, ovary, and cesarean section), 3 cases of upper gastrointestinal surgery (stomach or duodenum), 3 cases of cholecystectomy, 3 cases of inguinal hernia, and 2 cases of colorectal surgery.
Approach
Colorectal cancer was confirmed preoperatively by colonoscopy and a pathological examination. The characteristics of the patients and the preoperative, operative, and postoperative parameters were analyzed. Data on the following were obtained from medical records: sex, age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, smoking habit, previous medical history (cardiac disease, pulmonary disease, and diabetes mellitus), blood test results, preoperative bowel obstruction, preoperative therapy, subcutaneous fat area (SFA), visceral fat area (VFA), skeletal muscle area, distance between the inner edges of the rectus abdominis muscle (Fig. 1, arrow a), distance of protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site (Fig. 1, arrow b), thickness of the rectus abdominis muscle (Fig. 1, arrow c), the tumor location, TNM stage, tumor size, operative time, intraoperative bleeding, blood transfusion, additional operative procedure (resection of an additional organ due to another disease during the same operation), stoma creation, length of the skin incision, postoperative complications, and postoperative stay. The SFA and VFA at the level of the umbilicus and skeletal muscle area at the level of the third lumbar vertebra were calculated using the Ziostation software program. Ziostation is an image analysis software program that calculates the body composition from stored CT images. The distance between the inner edges of the rectus abdominis muscle, distance of protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site, and the thickness of the rectus abdominis muscle were measured on CT images. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the clinicopathological factors associated with IH.
Surgical procedure and patient management
All patients underwent laparoscopic surgery with adequate lymphadenectomy. The umbilicus is incised in the cephalocaudal direction using a scalpel. During specimen removal, the skin incision is extended using a scalpel, and the fascia is incised using an electrocautery scalpel. Wound protection is performed using a wound protector/retractor (Alexis, Applied Medical). Wound closure of the umbilical incision was performed with interrupted suture using 1-0 absorbable monofilament made from polydioxanone for the fascia layer and 4-0 absorbable monofilament made from polydioxanone for the skin. After closure, the wound is protected with gauze or pad-film dressing. The pathological tumor stage was classified according to the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC)’s TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 7th Edition [11]. Postoperative complications were defined according to the Clavien-Dindo classification [12, 13]. After the surgery, CT was conducted every 6 months for cancer surveillance. The primary endpoint of this study was the postoperative incidence of IH. The diagnosis of IH was made based on the discontinuity of the abdominal fascia at the umbilical surgical site with/without prolapse of any intra-abdominal organs on CT. IH was confirmed on CT images by a radiologist and the doctor in charge, and a physical examination by the doctor in charge. In addition, CT images were independently assessed by both surgeons and radiologists in this study. The length of follow-up was calculated from the surgery timing to the most recent clinical note from the medical records. The incidence of IH was monitored for more than 3 years after the operation.
Statistical analysis
Continuous variables were expressed as the median and interquartile range, and categorical variables were expressed as numbers. In the univariate analysis, group comparisons used Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for binary variables. A multivariate analysis using stepwise multiple logistic regression was performed using the variables found to be significant (P<0.1) by univariate analysis. The data were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The cumulative incidence of IH during the follow-up period was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. A P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 25 (IBM Japan).
Among the 202 patients (113 men, 89 women) with colorectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery, 52 patients (25.7%) were diagnosed with IH by CT. The cumulative incidence rate curve for IH is shown in Fig. 2. Symptomatic IH was seen in 17 patients (8.4%). No perioperative mortality was encountered. The median observation period was 48 months. Most cases of IH developed within 2 years after the surgery (49 of 52, 94.2%).
Table 1 shows the results of the univariate analysis associated with IH. The univariate analysis showed that female sex (P=0.004), a high BMI (P<0.001), noncurrent smoking habit (P=0.043), low level of hemoglobin (P=0.035), high SFA (P<0.001), high VFA (P=0.006), low skeletal muscle area (P=0.001), long distance between the inner edges of the rectus abdominis muscle (P=0.001), long protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site (P<0.001), and lymph node metastasis (P=0.007) were associated with IH according to Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Regarding patient, tumor and operative factors, the age, serum level of albumin, preoperative therapy, tumor size, operative time, blood transfusion, and length of the skin incision were not correlated with IH. Wound infection was also not correlated with IH.
The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed an older age (10-year increments: OR, 1.576; 95% CI, 1.027–2.419; P=0.037), lymph node metastasis (OR, 2.384; 95% CI, 1.132–5.018; P=0.022), and lengthy protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site (10-mm increments: OR, 5.555; 95% CI, 3.058–10.091; P<0.001) were independent risk factors for IH (Table 2).
In the present study, IH was diagnosed in 52 of the 202 patients (25.7%) by CT. This rate seemed to be relatively high compared with a previous report involving diagnoses by CT images (6%–15%) [39]. These reports included a relatively short follow-up period of at least 6 to 12 months [46]. The diagnosis of IH was made based on the discontinuity of the abdominal fascia at the umbilical surgical site with/without prolapse of any intra-abdominal organs by both surgeons and radiologists, and we included any-size IH in this study, as even small, asymptomatic IH has the potential to develop into symptomatic IH in the future. In addition, we considered it very important to make a strict diagnosis and analyze these small IHs as well in order to implement appropriate countermeasures in the future. Symptomatic IH was seen in 17 patients (8.4% in total patients, 32.7% in patient with IH diagnosed by CT). Reportedly, about 30% of IHs are missed on a physical examination [14, 15]. Patients may be unaware of IH, perhaps due to severe obesity, the greater omentum entering the hernia or the hernia itself being small. In addition, it may be difficult to examine the hernia orifice in many obese patients because of the thickness of their subcutaneous fat. Therefore, appropriate evaluations in combination with the analysis of both CT findings and a physical examination are needed for the accurate evaluation of IH.
Several risk factors of IHs associated with open abdominal surgery have been identified [16]. However, the incidence of IH was reportedly not markedly lower with laparoscopic colorectal surgery than with open surgery [3, 10]. Laparotomy and laparoscopy differ in the degree of abdominal wall disruption induced, surgical invasiveness, and operative time. Thus, these procedures should be considered separately in terms of risk factors for IH. A number of risk factors for IH after laparoscopic colorectal surgery have been reported, including female sex, a high BMI, umbilical hernia, incision length, periumbilical midline incision, surgical site infection, and the VFA [4, 5, 7, 8]. However, the incidence of IH does not seem to be markedly different in recent studies compared with earlier ones. Therefore, ongoing analyses and the implementation of countermeasures against risk factors of IH are needed.
In the present study, an older age was an independent risk factor for IH according to the multivariate analysis. Previous reports have also suggested that an older age is a well-known risk factor for IH after colorectal surgery, regardless of a laparoscopic or open procedure [17, 18]. A poor nutritional status and/or the vulnerability of tissue with age was suggested to cause weakness of the abdominal wall [17]. Given the current aging of society, opportunities to perform laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients are expected to increase. Therefore, the rate of complication of IH may also increase, becoming inevitable. Since the issue of age cannot be mitigated, identifying other age-related risk factors and adopting countermeasures will be necessary.
Our study demonstrated that an increased BMI, SFA, VFA, and decreased skeletal muscle area were significantly correlated with the incidence of IH in a univariate analysis. Even though those factors were not independent risk factors, there have been supportive previous reports regarding such obesity-related factors [7, 8]. Yamamoto et al. [7] and Fukuoka et al. [8] reported that VFA of >100–110 cm2 was an independent risk factor for IH, and the intra-abdominal pressure in obese patients is considered to depend more strongly on a direct mass effect from the intra-abdominal adipose tissue itself [19]. These results indicated that even if the length of the incision is shorter after laparoscopic surgery than after open surgery, the presence of a larger amount of visceral fat would still influence the development of IH. In our study, the SFA was also related to the risk of IH in a univariate analysis. We speculated that this might be due to the difficulty of appropriately closing the abdominal wall because of the presence of excessive subcutaneous fat tissue and the reduced strength of the closure of the abdominal wall due to the innate weakness of the abdominal wall fascia. Therefore, preoperative assessment of the body composition and nutrition, and appropriate nutritional and dietary management by a nutritionist, which may help reduce the body fat mass while maintaining nutrition as preoperative preparatory activities at least while waiting for surgery, may be considered in the future. However, intentional prolonged intervention and rapid weight loss in a short period of time may cause the progression of cancer and decreased nutrition. Thus, this situation should be avoided.
Our study demonstrated a higher rate of female patients with IH than males. Previous reports have described conflicting findings, with different studies demonstrating female or male sex as an independent risk factor for IH after colorectal surgery [3, 7]. These discrepancies regarding sex-specific influences on the risk of IH are considered to be due to the study population and possible sex-specific differences in wound healing due to differences in collagen metabolism between sexes [7, 16]. Further studies with more cases should be conducted to resolve this issue.
We also examined the distance between the inner edges of the rectus abdominis muscle and the distance of the protrusion of the umbilical peritoneum, as we sometimes experienced cases wherein umbilical hernia patients developed IH after their operation. In fact, Fukuoka et al. [8] recently reported umbilical hernia as an independent risk factor for IH after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. We also tried to confirm the relationship between umbilical hernia and IH. However, the definition of umbilical hernia seemed to be ambiguous and depended on the discretion of the diagnostician. Therefore, we conducted a quantitative assessment of the umbilical site (Fig. 1). A longer distance between the inner edges of the rectus abdominis muscle and the distance of protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site were both associated with IH in our univariate analysis. Furthermore, a longer protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site was the only independent risk factor for IH according to multivariate analysis. These results suggest that umbilical hernia may be a very important factor associated with the development of IH after abdominal surgery. The presence of an umbilical hernia might reflect the original tendency for an increased abdominal pressure due to a large amount of visceral fat, or it may reflect the original weakness of the fascia at the umbilical site.
In the present study, lymph node metastasis was frequently seen in patients with IH and was also an independent risk factor. There have been no previous reports regarding the association between lymph node metastasis and the incidence of IH. We also analyzed the influence of postoperative chemotherapy on the incidence of IH, because lymph node metastasis is related to a higher stage and the indication of postoperative chemotherapy. However, postoperative chemotherapy was not significantly associated with the occurrence of IH. Therefore, we speculate that it is possible that cases with lymph node metastasis may have also had a thicker mesentery due to their lymph node volume, which might have resulted in a larger incision of the abdominal wall during tumor extraction. Although no relationship was noted between the length of the surgical incision and IH in the univariate analysis, the skin incision may differ from the actual fascial incision because of its elasticity. The development of IH might be complex and related to a combination of the length of the fascial wound incision, the weakness of the fascia, and the thickness of the mesentery due to visceral fat and lymph node metastasis. In our study, the maximum tumor size and circumference rate of tumor were not correlated with the incidence of IH. Therefore, the tumor size might less markedly influence the size of the incision for tumor extraction than the thickness of the mesentery.
In addition to the factors we analyzed in this study, other factors may have contributed to the development of IH, including the patient's long-term nutritional status, underlying disease, and the state of control of coexisting diseases. Underlying diseases were observed and treated by the primary care physician in most of the patients during follow-up, and we lacked sufficient data for a combined analysis. Therefore, it would be interesting to examine these factors together in the future.
The present study was associated with some limitations, including its retrospective design and the fact that it was conducted at a single institution with a relatively small study population. Therefore, further studies will be needed in order to confirm the risk factors of IH after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.
In conclusion, our findings suggest that an older age, lymph node metastasis, and lengthy protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site are risk factors for IH after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. An assessment using these factors before the operation and the implementation of countermeasures might help prevent IH. In addition, to prevent or minimize these problems, it might be interesting to reexamine the method of fascia suture, the specimen extraction site (e.g., a Pfannenstiel incision), and the use of a synthetic mesh with simultaneous colorectal surgery in the future.

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

None.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Keiichiro Okuyama, Dr. Hiroshi Kubo, Dr. Osamu Ikeda, Dr. Atsushi Miyoshi, and Dr. Seiji Sato, all of whom belong to the Department of Surgery, Saga Medical Center Koseikan (Saga, Japan), for treating the patients and providing useful discussions. We also thank Ms. Shiori Tanaka, who belongs to the Medical Information Division, Life Science Research Institution, Saga Medical Center Koseikan, for performing the data collection.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: MH, TT; Data curation: MH, SA, HS, SM; Formal analysis: MH, SA, ES; Investigation: MH, SA, ES; Methodology: MH, TT; Project administration: MH, TT; Resources: TT, KK; Software: ES; Supervision: TT, KK; Validation: MH, SA; Visualization: MH, TT; Writing–original draft: MH; Writing–review & editing: TT, SA, ES, HS, SM, KK. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Fig. 1.
The assessment of the umbilical site (arrow a, distance between the inner edges of the rectus abdominis muscle; arrow b, distance of protrusion of the peritoneum at umbilical site; arrow c, thickness of the rectus abdominis muscle).
ac-2022-00213-0030f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
The cumulative incidence rate of incisional hernia.
ac-2022-00213-0030f2.jpg
ac-2022-00213-0030f3.jpg
Table 1.
Results of the univariate analyses of the patients
Factor Incisional hernia (n=202) P-value
No (n=150) Yes (n=52)
Patient factor
 Sex 0.004*
  Male 93 (82.3) 20 (17.7)
  Female 57 (64.0) 32 (36.0)
 Age (yr) 73 (66–77) 73 (68–78) 0.090
 Body mass index (kg/m2) 21.8 (20.2–25.4) 24.4 (22.4–26.1) <0.001*
 ASA PS classification >0.999
  0, I 40 (74.1) 14 (25.9)
  II, III 110 (74.3) 38 (25.7)
 Currently smoking 0.043*
  Yes 34 (87.2) 5 (12.8)
  No 116 (71.2) 47 (28.8)
 Cardiac disease 0.190
  Yes 12 (92.3) 1 (7.7)
  No 138 (73.0) 51 (27.0)
 Pulmonary disease 0.358
  Yes 9 (64.3) 5 (35.7)
  No 141 (75.0) 47 (25.0)
 Diabetes mellitus >0.999
  Yes 39 (73.6) 14 (26.4)
  No 111 (74.5) 38 (25.5)
 Hemoglobin (g/dL) 12.9 (11.7–14.1) 12.2 (10.2–13.0) 0.035*
 Albumin (g/dL) 4.1 (3.8–4.3) 4.1 (3.8–4.3) 0.423
 Preoperative bowel obstruction >0.999
  Yes 10 (76.9) 3 (23.1)
  No 140 (74.1) 49 (25.9)
 Preoperative therapy 0.273
  Yes 2 (50.0) 2 (50.0)
  No 148 (74.7) 50 (25.3)
 Subcutaneous fat area (cm2) 104.6 (56.0–126.6) 156.8 (125.0–188.9) <0.001*
 Visceral fat area (cm2) 78.4 (39.8–117.9) 113.7 (86.8–146.0) 0.006*
 Skeletal muscle area (cm2) 98.1 (80.4–117.1) 77.3 (62.2–96.0) 0.001*
 Distance between the inner edges of the rectus abdominis muscle (mm) 18.4 (14.8–23.4) 24.7 (20.6–31.3) 0.001*
 Thickness of the rectus abdominis muscle (mm) 8.9 (8.0–10.6) 8.5 (7.1–9.6) 0.444
 Distance of protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site (mm) 0.0 (0.0–5.4) 8.5 (2.7–14.8) <0.001*
Tumor factor
 Tumor location >0.999
  Colon 124 (74.3) 43 (25.7)
  Rectum 26 (74.3) 9 (25.7)
 T category 0.419
  T0, T1, T2 65 (77.4) 19 (22.6)
  T3, T4 85 (72.0) 33 (28.0)
 N category 0.007*
  Negative 105 (80.8) 25 (19.2)
  Positive 45 (62.5) 27 (37.5)
 M category 0.450
  Negative 149 (74.5) 51 (25.5)
  Positive 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0)
 Maximum tumor length (cm) 4.4 (2.5–6.0) 5.0 (3.6–6.5) 0.452
 Circumference rate of tumor (%) 62.2 (31.7–93.9) 68.3 (48.2–92.5) 0.941
Operative factor
 Operative time (min) 232(199–305) 241 (211–307) 0.555
 Intraoperative bleeding (mL) 25 (10–54) 56 (23–81) 0.162
 Blood transfusion >0.999
  Yes 14 (73.7) 5 (26.3)
  No 136 (74.3) 47 (25.7)
 Additional operative procedure 0.510
  Yes 8 (66.7) 4 (33.3)
  No 142 (74.7) 48 (25.3)
 Stoma creation 0.744
  Yes 9 (69.2) 4 (30.8)
  No 141 (74.6) 48 (25.4)
 Length of the skin incision (cm) 5.0 (4.0–5.0) 4.8 (3.9–5.0) 0.250
Postoperative factor
 Wound infection ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade I 0.273
  Yes 2 (50.0) 2 (50.0)
  No 148 (74.7) 50 (25.3)
 Anastomotic leakage ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade II 0.574
  Yes 4 (100.0) 0 (0)
  No 146 (73.7) 52 (26.3)
 Postoperative complication ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade II 0.226
  Yes 16 (64.0) 9 (36.0)
  No 134 (75.7) 43 (24.3)
 Postoperative stay (day) 9.5 (8.0–11.0) 10.0 (8.8–11.3) 0.815
 Postoperative chemotherapy 0.085
  Yes 43 (66.2) 22 (33.8)
  No 107 (78.1) 30 (21.9)

Values are presented as number only or median (interquartile range).

*P<0.05 (statistically significant).

Table 2.
Results of a multivariate analysis
Parameter Multivariate analysis
OR (95% CI) P-value
Age (10-year increments) 1.576 (1.027–2.419) 0.037*
Lymph node metastasis 2.384 (1.132–5.018) 0.022*
Distance of protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site (10-mm increments) 5.555 (3.058–10.091) <0.001*

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

*P<0.05 (statistically significant).

  • 1. Vignali A, Di Palo S, Tamburini A, Radaelli G, Orsenigo E, Staudacher C. Laparoscopic vs. open colectomies in octogenarians: a case-matched control study. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48:2070–5.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Biondi A, Grosso G, Mistretta A, Marventano S, Toscano C, Gruttadauria S, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes comparison. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2013;23:1–7.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 3. Llaguna OH, Avgerinos DV, Lugo JZ, Matatov T, Abbadessa B, Martz JE, et al. Incidence and risk factors for the development of incisional hernia following elective laparoscopic versus open colon resections. Am J Surg 2010;200:265–9.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Sadava EE, Kerman Cabo J, Carballo FH, Bun ME, Rotholtz NA. Incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: is there any factor associated? Surg Endosc 2014;28:3421–4.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 5. Parés D, Shamali A, Stefan S, Flashman K, O’Leary D, Conti J, et al. Predictive factors for extraction site hernia after laparoscopic right colectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis 2016;31:1323–8.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 6. Benlice C, Stocchi L, Costedio MM, Gorgun E, Kessler H. Impact of the specific extraction-site location on the risk of incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 2016;59:743–50.ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Yamamoto M, Takakura Y, Ikeda S, Itamoto T, Urushihara T, Egi H. Visceral obesity is a significant risk factor for incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a single-center review. Asian J Endosc Surg 2018;11:373–7.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 8. Fukuoka H, Watanabe J, Masanori O, Suwa Y, Suwa H, Ishibe A, et al. The risk factors for incisional hernia after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a multicenter retrospective study at Yokohama Clinical Oncology Group. Surg Endosc 2021;35:3471–8.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 9. Iwaya A, Yamazaki T, Kameyama H, Uehara H, Hirai M, Komatsu M, et al. Influence of suture materials on incisional hernia rate after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: a propensity score analysis. J Anus Rectum Colon 2021;5:46–51.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. Kössler-Ebs JB, Grummich K, Jensen K, Hüttner FJ, Müller-Stich B, Seiler CM, et al. Incisional hernia rates after laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg 2016;40:2319–30.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 11. Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.
  • 12. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 13. Katayama H, Kurokawa Y, Nakamura K, Ito H, Kanemitsu Y, Masuda N, et al. Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria. Surg Today 2016;46:668–85.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 14. Baucom RB, Beck WC, Holzman MD, Sharp KW, Nealon WH, Poulose BK. Prospective evaluation of surgeon physical examination for detection of incisional hernias. J Am Coll Surg 2014;218:363–6.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Naguib N, Rafique H, Dhruva Rao PK, Longworth T, Soukias JM, Masoud A. A review of the incidence of iatrogenic hernia in both laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery: using CT as the gold standard of detection, cohort study. Int J Surg 2015;19:87–90.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Yahchouchy-Chouillard E, Aura T, Picone O, Etienne JC, Fingerhut A. Incisional hernias: I. Related risk factors. Dig Surg 2003;20:3–9.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 17. Yamada T, Okabayashi K, Hasegawa H, Tsuruta M, Abe Y, Ishida T, et al. Age, preoperative subcutaneous fat area, and open laparotomy are risk factors for incisional hernia following colorectal cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23 Suppl 2:S236–41.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 18. Seo GH, Choe EK, Park KJ, Chai YJ. Incidence of clinically relevant incisional hernia after colon cancer surgery and its risk factors: a nationwide claims study. World J Surg 2018;42:1192–9.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 19. Lambert DM, Marceau S, Forse RA. Intra-abdominal pressure in the morbidly obese. Obes Surg 2005;15:1225–32.ArticlePubMedPDF

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Outcomes of elective and emergency surgical repair of incisional hernia: a comparative observational study
      I. Omar, A. Townsend, O. Hadfield, T. Zaimis, M. Ismaiel, J. Wilson, C. Magee
      Hernia.2024; 28(5): 1619.     CrossRef
    • The first case of robotic‐assisted transabdominal retrorectus repair for incisional hernia in Japan
      Gen Shimada, Taketo Matsubara, Mariko Sanbonmatsu, Rumi Nakabayashi, Yosuke Miyachi, Takashi Taketa, Akihiro Suzuki, Tadao Yokoi, Toshimi Kaido
      Asian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery.2023; 16(2): 305.     CrossRef
    • Mid-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic colectomy: a propensity score-matched cohort study from a single institution
      Heita Ozawa, Naoyuki Toyota, Junichi Sakamoto, Hiroki Nakanishi, Ryo Nakanishi, Shin Fujita
      Surgery Today.2023; 53(8): 992.     CrossRef
    • Impact of non-muscle cutting periumbilical transverse incision on the risk of incisional hernia as compared to midline incision during laparoscopic colon cancer surgery: a study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial
      Soo Yeun Park, Gi Won Ha, Soo Young Lee, Chang Hyun Kim, Gyung Mo Son
      Trials.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite this Article
      Cite this Article
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Risk factors of incisional hernia at the umbilical specimen extraction site in patients with laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery
      Ann Coloproctol. 2024;40(2):136-144.   Published online June 21, 2022
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Figure
    • 0
    • 1
    • 2
    Related articles
    Risk factors of incisional hernia at the umbilical specimen extraction site in patients with laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery
    Image Image Image
    Fig. 1. The assessment of the umbilical site (arrow a, distance between the inner edges of the rectus abdominis muscle; arrow b, distance of protrusion of the peritoneum at umbilical site; arrow c, thickness of the rectus abdominis muscle).
    Fig. 2. The cumulative incidence rate of incisional hernia.
    Graphical abstract
    Risk factors of incisional hernia at the umbilical specimen extraction site in patients with laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery
    Factor Incisional hernia (n=202) P-value
    No (n=150) Yes (n=52)
    Patient factor
     Sex 0.004*
      Male 93 (82.3) 20 (17.7)
      Female 57 (64.0) 32 (36.0)
     Age (yr) 73 (66–77) 73 (68–78) 0.090
     Body mass index (kg/m2) 21.8 (20.2–25.4) 24.4 (22.4–26.1) <0.001*
     ASA PS classification >0.999
      0, I 40 (74.1) 14 (25.9)
      II, III 110 (74.3) 38 (25.7)
     Currently smoking 0.043*
      Yes 34 (87.2) 5 (12.8)
      No 116 (71.2) 47 (28.8)
     Cardiac disease 0.190
      Yes 12 (92.3) 1 (7.7)
      No 138 (73.0) 51 (27.0)
     Pulmonary disease 0.358
      Yes 9 (64.3) 5 (35.7)
      No 141 (75.0) 47 (25.0)
     Diabetes mellitus >0.999
      Yes 39 (73.6) 14 (26.4)
      No 111 (74.5) 38 (25.5)
     Hemoglobin (g/dL) 12.9 (11.7–14.1) 12.2 (10.2–13.0) 0.035*
     Albumin (g/dL) 4.1 (3.8–4.3) 4.1 (3.8–4.3) 0.423
     Preoperative bowel obstruction >0.999
      Yes 10 (76.9) 3 (23.1)
      No 140 (74.1) 49 (25.9)
     Preoperative therapy 0.273
      Yes 2 (50.0) 2 (50.0)
      No 148 (74.7) 50 (25.3)
     Subcutaneous fat area (cm2) 104.6 (56.0–126.6) 156.8 (125.0–188.9) <0.001*
     Visceral fat area (cm2) 78.4 (39.8–117.9) 113.7 (86.8–146.0) 0.006*
     Skeletal muscle area (cm2) 98.1 (80.4–117.1) 77.3 (62.2–96.0) 0.001*
     Distance between the inner edges of the rectus abdominis muscle (mm) 18.4 (14.8–23.4) 24.7 (20.6–31.3) 0.001*
     Thickness of the rectus abdominis muscle (mm) 8.9 (8.0–10.6) 8.5 (7.1–9.6) 0.444
     Distance of protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site (mm) 0.0 (0.0–5.4) 8.5 (2.7–14.8) <0.001*
    Tumor factor
     Tumor location >0.999
      Colon 124 (74.3) 43 (25.7)
      Rectum 26 (74.3) 9 (25.7)
     T category 0.419
      T0, T1, T2 65 (77.4) 19 (22.6)
      T3, T4 85 (72.0) 33 (28.0)
     N category 0.007*
      Negative 105 (80.8) 25 (19.2)
      Positive 45 (62.5) 27 (37.5)
     M category 0.450
      Negative 149 (74.5) 51 (25.5)
      Positive 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0)
     Maximum tumor length (cm) 4.4 (2.5–6.0) 5.0 (3.6–6.5) 0.452
     Circumference rate of tumor (%) 62.2 (31.7–93.9) 68.3 (48.2–92.5) 0.941
    Operative factor
     Operative time (min) 232(199–305) 241 (211–307) 0.555
     Intraoperative bleeding (mL) 25 (10–54) 56 (23–81) 0.162
     Blood transfusion >0.999
      Yes 14 (73.7) 5 (26.3)
      No 136 (74.3) 47 (25.7)
     Additional operative procedure 0.510
      Yes 8 (66.7) 4 (33.3)
      No 142 (74.7) 48 (25.3)
     Stoma creation 0.744
      Yes 9 (69.2) 4 (30.8)
      No 141 (74.6) 48 (25.4)
     Length of the skin incision (cm) 5.0 (4.0–5.0) 4.8 (3.9–5.0) 0.250
    Postoperative factor
     Wound infection ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade I 0.273
      Yes 2 (50.0) 2 (50.0)
      No 148 (74.7) 50 (25.3)
     Anastomotic leakage ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade II 0.574
      Yes 4 (100.0) 0 (0)
      No 146 (73.7) 52 (26.3)
     Postoperative complication ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade II 0.226
      Yes 16 (64.0) 9 (36.0)
      No 134 (75.7) 43 (24.3)
     Postoperative stay (day) 9.5 (8.0–11.0) 10.0 (8.8–11.3) 0.815
     Postoperative chemotherapy 0.085
      Yes 43 (66.2) 22 (33.8)
      No 107 (78.1) 30 (21.9)
    Parameter Multivariate analysis
    OR (95% CI) P-value
    Age (10-year increments) 1.576 (1.027–2.419) 0.037*
    Lymph node metastasis 2.384 (1.132–5.018) 0.022*
    Distance of protrusion of the peritoneum at the umbilical site (10-mm increments) 5.555 (3.058–10.091) <0.001*
    Table 1. Results of the univariate analyses of the patients

    Values are presented as number only or median (interquartile range).

    P<0.05 (statistically significant).

    Table 2. Results of a multivariate analysis

    OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

    P<0.05 (statistically significant).


    Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology Twitter Facebook
    TOP