Open Component Separation for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

  • David Earle


Open component separation can be described by a variety of techniques. The most commonly utilized technique involves detaching the insertion of the external oblique along its length lateral to the rectus abdominis muscles and separating the external oblique muscle from the internal oblique. This may be accomplished with or without the mobilization of the posterior rectus sheath and with or without the use of a prosthesis. Primary closure of the midline (posterior and anterior rectus sheaths) should be performed using a short suture technique in which 5–8-mm bites of tissue are taken with each bite in terms of both depth and travel, taking care to avoid incorporating muscle and attenuated fascia within the suture line. This technique should be used selectively for patients with medium to large defects. The benefits of component separation performed in this manner are twofold: (1) medial mobilization of the rectus muscles and (2) reduced postoperative tension on the midline closure. Recurrence rates in the 5–20% range should be expected, and recurrences are typically smaller and easier to deal with compared to the hernia at the time of reconstruction with CS. A perforator-sparing technique is best when possible and should yield wound complication rates that should be less than 10% and generally minor in severity.


Open component separation Abdominal wall reconstruction Ventral hernia 


  1. 1.
    Larson GM, Harrower HW. Plastic mesh repair of incisional hernias. Am J Surg. 1978;135(4):559–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mahorner H. Umbilical and ventral herniae. Ann Surg. 1940;111(6):979–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gibson C. Operation for the cure of large ventral hernia. Ann Surg. 1920;72(2):214–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramirez OM, Ruas E, Dellon AL. “Components separation” method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;86(3):519–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shell DH, de la Torre J, Andrades P, Vasconez LO. Open repair of ventral incisional hernias. Surg Clin North Am. 2008;88:61–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blatnik JA, Krpata DM, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ. Does a history of wound infection predict postoperative surgical site infection after ventral hernia repair? Am J Surg. 2012;203(3):370–4. discussion 374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abe T, Kusuhara N, Yoshimura N, et al. Differential respiratory activity of four abdominal muscles in humans. J Appl Physiol. 1996;80(4):1379–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Troyer A, Estenne M, Ninane V, Van Gansbeke D, Gorini M. Transversus abdominis muscle function in humans. J Appl Physiol. 1990;68(3):1010–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gracovetsky S, Farfan H, Helleur C. The abdominal mechanism. Spine. 1985;10(4):317–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lowe JB, et al. Risks associated with “component separation” for closure of complex abdominal wall defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(3):1276–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cengiz Y, Blomquist P, Israelsson LA. Small tissue bites and wound strength: an experimental study. Arch Surg. 2001;136(3):272–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Millbourn D, Cengiz Y, Israelsson LA. Effect of stitch length on wound complications after closure of midline incisions: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg. 2009;144(11):1056–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004;240:578–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lowe JB, Garza JR, Bowman JL, Rohrich RJ, Strodel WE. Endoscopically assisted “components separation” for closure of abdominal wall defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saulis AS, Dumanian GA. Periumbilical rectus abdominis perforator preservation significantly reduces superficial wound complications in separation of parts hernia repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(7):2275–80. discussion: 2281–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giurgius M, Bendure L, Davenport DL, Roth JS. The endoscopic component separation technique for hernia repair results in reduced morbidity compared to the open component separation technique. Hernia. 2012;16(1):47–51. Epub 2011 Aug 11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harth KC, Rose J, Delaney CP, Blatnik JA, Halaweish I, Rosen MJ. Open versus endoscopic component separation: a cost comparison. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(9):2865–70. Epub 2011 Jun 3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Earle
    • 1
  1. 1.Minimally Invasive Surgery and Esophageal Physiology Laboratory, Baystate Medical CenterTufts University School of MedicineSpringfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations