↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of Large Incisional Hernias in Sandwich Technique - A Review of the Literature

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Treatment of Large Incisional Hernias in Sandwich Technique - A Review of the Literature
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ferdinand Köckerling, Hubert Scheuerlein, Christine Schug-Pass

Abstract

In a systematic review of the surgical treatment of large incisional hernia sublay repair, the sandwich technique and aponeuroplasty with intraperitoneal mesh displayed the best results. In this systematic review only the sandwich technique, which used the hernia sac as an extension of the posterior and anterior rectus sheath and placement of a non-absorbable mesh in the sublay position, was included. Other modifications of the sandwich technique are published in the literature and were also analyzed in this literature review. A systematic search of the available literature was performed in November 2017 using Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library using the terms "sandwich technique", "double prosthetic repair", "double mesh intraperitoneal repair", and "component separation technique with double mesh". This review is based on 24 relevant publications. Unfortunately, the evidence of the available studies is not very high since only prospective and retrospective case series have been published. There are no comparative studies at all. Therefore, the findings of the published case series must be viewed in a critical light. The published studies report a remarkably low recurrence rate of 0-13% with a follow-up of 1-7 years. One limitation that must be mentioned here is that in around half of the studies the method of follow-up was not specified and in the remaining cases this was based on clinical examination by the surgical team. This puts into perspective the reported results, which appear to be too favorable given the complex nature of the hernias involved.The major disadvantage of the sandwich technique is a very high rate of wound complications of up to 68%, mainly induced by creation of large skin and subcutaneous cellular tissue flaps. It is difficult to evaluate the significance of the various modifications of the "sandwich technique" based on the available literature since it includes only case series and no comparative studies. The techniques used are associated with very high wound complication rates but with only relatively low recurrence rates despite the complexity of the cases involved. This must be verified in studies with a well-designed methodology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 54%
Materials Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 9 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 December 2019.
All research outputs
#12,899,041
of 23,079,238 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#301
of 3,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,669
of 330,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,079,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,032 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.