• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Underlay Versus Retrorectus Mesh Placement in Complex Ventral Hernia Repair Utilizing Endoscopic Component Separation

Underlay Versus Retrorectus Mesh Placement in Complex Ventral Hernia Repair Utilizing Endoscopic Component Separation

M Gustafson, MD, R Kimball, MD, B Pellini, MD, I Daoud, MD, FACS. Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, St. Francis Hospital and Medical Center; Hartford, CT.

Introduction: Abdominal wall reconstruction for complex abdominal wall defects remains a challenge. Although open component separation with medialization of the rectus muscles restores integrity and function of the abdominal wall, it is fraught with wound complications. Multiple studies demonstrate a decreased incidence of wound complications with endoscopic component separation as perforating vessels remain intact. The ideal mesh and its placement, however, remain elusive. We aim to investigate outcomes after endoscopic component separation with open ventral hernia repair and underlay versus retrorectus mesh placement.

Results: Forty-eight patients underwent bilateral endoscopic component separation with open ventral hernia repair and either underlay or retrorectus mesh placement by a single surgeon at our institution between February 2010 and July 2013. Mesh was placed as an underlay in 27 patients and retrorectus in 21. The demographics of the underlay and retrorectus groups were similar in that there was no significant difference in ASA p = 0.53, ethnicity p = 0.50, mean age (59.8 vs 55.1 yrs, p = 0.18), BMI (32.2 vs 35.8 p = 0.48), size of fascial defect (10.8 vs 10.7cm, p = 0.88) and hernia grade p = 0.66. There were more female patients in the retrorectus group, however this was not statistically significant (67% vs 41%, p = 0.067). There were no significant differences in overall incidence of complications (29.6% vs 42.9%, p = 0.15), hospital length of stay (6.8 vs 6.6 days, p = 0.78), surgical site infections (15% vs 14%, p = 0.64), and recurrence (11% vs 0%, p = 0.17). There were more patients with seromas requiring drainage in the retrorectus group (15% vs 0%, p = 0.031).

Discussion: With the exception of increased rates of seroma requiring drainage, retrorectus placement of mesh in our open ventral hernia repairs with endoscopic component separation yields outcomes comparable to underlay mesh placement. The incidence of both procedure-related and nonprocedure-related complications, recurrence and hospital length of stay are equivalent. The majority of seromas requiring drainage have been lateral, in the field of the component separation, thus it is difficult to attribute this to retrorectus mesh placement. Our drain placement has not been consistent throughout this period and this should be investigated for potential association with seroma development. One limitation of this study is a shorter average follow up in the retrorectus group (8.7, range 2-15 months) compared to the underlay group (31.6, range 19-43 months) owing to a later date of service. Although retrorectus mesh placement has not increased perioperative morbidity, at least two years of follow up is sought to better assess recurrence rates. Placing mesh outside of the peritoneal cavity has the potential benefit of utilizing a synthetic mesh above the posterior rectus sheath, thus avoiding the complications feared with intraperitoneal placement of synthetic meshes and significant cost of biologic prostheses.

View Poster

5,188

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals