BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of @entity4036 is difficult, and no data are available to decide which technique should be used. It was the aim of this study to compare the "components separation technique" (CST) versus prosthetic repair with e-PTFE patch (PR). METHOD: @entity1 with @entity4036 were randomized for CST or PR. @entity1 underwent operation following standard procedures. Postoperative morbidity was scored on a standard form, and @entity1 were followed for 36 months after operation for recurrent @entity547 . RESULTS: Between November 1999 and June 2001, 39 @entity1 were randomized for the study, 19 for CST and 18 for PR. Two @entity1 were excluded perioperatively because of gross contamination of the operative field. No differences were found between the groups at baseline with respect to demographic details, co-morbidity, and size of the defect. There was no in-hospital mortality. Wound complications were found in 10 of 19 @entity1 after CST and 13 of 18 @entity1 after PR. @entity2080 was found more frequently after PR. In 7 of 18 @entity1 after PR, the prosthesis had to be removed as a consequence of early or late infection. Reherniation occurred in 10 @entity1 after CST and in 4 @entity1 after PR. CONCLUSIONS: Repair of abdominal wall hernias with the component separation technique compares favorably with prosthetic repair. Although the reherniation rate after CST is relatively high, the consequences of wound healing disturbances in the presence of e-PTFE patch are far-reaching, often resulting in loss of the prosthesis.

Repair of XXXX : "components separation technique" versus prosthetic repair : interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients'] @entity4036 :: ('MESH:D046449', 'Disease') :: ['giant midline abdominal wall hernias'] @entity2080 :: ('MESH:D049291', 'Disease') :: ['Seroma'] @entity547 :: ('MESH:D006547', 'Disease') :: ['hernia']
@entity4036 :: (MESH:D046449,Disease) :: ['giant midline abdominal wall hernias']
