Search

Numerous innovations have been aided by abdominal wall surgical repair. Abdominal wall surgery was drastically altered by synthetic materials. Tissue engineering was unquestionably first applied to biomaterials. The purpose of the present study is to compare different repeating approaches with rising tissue engineering complexity in repairing complex incisional hernia in emergency setting. Patients with complicated incisional hernia were prospectively included in the study and divided into 4 groups: DR (Direct Repair) group underwent direct reconstruction of the abdominal wall, BR (Biological mesh Repair) group underwent reconstruction of the abdominal wall with biological mesh (retro-muscular), BPR [Biological mesh and Platelet Enriched Plasma (PEP), gel] group underwent reconstruction of the abdominal wall with Biological mesh (retro-muscular) and PEP, BPSR (biological mesh, PEP gel and Bone Marrow Stem Cells) group underwent reconstruction of the abdominal wall with biological mesh (retromuscular), PEP and Bone Marrow Stem cells (BMSc). Forty patients were enrolled. Patients in the DR group experienced a higher rate of severe complication (p<0.05). Recurrence rates were 60% for DR patients, 20% for BM patients and 10% for the BM+PEP group (p<0.05). Median follow-up period was 64.6, 55.7 and 55.8 months (p<0.05). 7- and 30-days abdominal wall thickness is progressively increased by different techniques: BP, BP+PEP and BP+PEP+BMSc (p<0.05). No mortality was registered. Tissue engineering techniques in abdominal wall reconstruction showed promising results. They seem to reduce the recurrence rate without increasing complication one in complicated incisional abdominal wall hernia. Although many aspects are yet to be determined and standardized, it seems extremely important to continue research and experimentation in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spleen injuries are among the most frequent trauma-related injuries. The approach for diagnosis and management of Blunt Splenic Injury (BSI) has been considerably shifted towards Non-Operative Management (NOM) in the last few decades. NOM of blunt splenic injuries includes Splenic Angio-Embolization (SAE). Aim of this study was to analyze Pisa Level 1 trauma center (Italy) last 10-years-experience in the management of Blunt Splenic Trauma (BST), and more specifically to evaluate NOM rate and failure. Retrospective analysis of all patients admitted with blunt splenic trauma was done. They were divided into two groups according to the treatment: hemodynamically unstable patients treated operatively (OM group) and patients underwent a non-operative management (NOM group). The CT scan performed in all NOM group patients. Univariate analysis was performed to identify differences between the two groups. Multivariate analysis adjusting for factors with a p value < 0.05 or with clinical relevance was used to identify possible risk factors for NOM failure. 193 consecutive patients with blunt splenic trauma were admitted. Emergency splenectomies were performed in 53 patients (OM group); 140 were managed non-operatively with or without SAE (NOM group). NOM rate in high grade injuries is 57%. Overall NOM failure rate is 9%, and success rate in high grade splenic injuries is 48%; multivariate analysis showed AAST score ≥3 as a risk factor for NOM failure. Non-operative management currently represents the gold standard management for hemodynamically stable patient with blunt splenic trauma even in high grade splenic injuries. AAST ≥3 spleen lesion is a failure risk factor but not a contraindication to for non-operative management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]