Abstract
Intraoperative Fascial Traction (IFT) represents a promising alternative technique for complex abdominal wall reconstruction in large ventral hernias, particularly those exceeding 10 cm in width. Developed by Swiss and German surgeons and introduced clinically in 2021, IFT achieves fascial closure without extensive muscle component separation. Multiple studies demonstrate closure rates of 79%–96% for defects below 19 cm, though rates decline significantly for larger defects. Preoperative botulinum toxin A (BTA) administration and transversus abdominis muscle release (TAR) are often combined with IFT. The paper discusses the Hamburg algorithm 2.0 as it provides a structured treatment approach based on defect width, recommending IFT as a first-line intervention for defects up to 15 cm and incorporating additional component separation for larger hernias. Controlled fascial traction allows standardised treatment and can lead to higher fascial closure and lower recurrence rates.
Introduction
It is generally accepted that two key principles guide modern ventral hernia repair: 1. The hernia repair should be augmented by a mesh in retrorectus, retromuscular or preperitoneal position and 2. The fascial defect should be closed primarily by suture and bridging should be avoided [1].
Around the millennium, the Dutch working group of Hans Jeekel from Rotterdam showed that a mesh augmented incisional hernia repair is superior to direct suture repair in terms of recurrence rates [2, 3]. Later, other Randomised Controlled Trials demonstrated that a mesh in sublay position has significantly lower recurrence and seroma rates as mesh augmentation in Onlay position [4, 5]. Regarding fascial closure, it was shown that a bridging of the anterior rectus sheath (ARS) has drastically increased risk of recurrence [6, 7].
Naturally, it is relatively easy to follow these key principles in smaller hernias. The more challenging cases are summarised as complex abdominal wall hernias. Although the term is not standardised, it often involves a hernia width above 10 cm or significant loss of domain [8]. Those cases require extensive reconstruction of the abdominal wall, referred to as complex abdominal wall repair (CAWR). For this purpose, component separation techniques such as anterior component separation (ACS) and transversus abdominis muscle release (TAR) have been available for many years and have proven to be very valuable [1, 9–11]. Nevertheless, apart from being surgically demanding, they have in common that the aponeurosis or muscle fibres of one or more of the lateral abdominal wall muscles are deliberately severed. Looking for alternatives to restore the abdominal wall and to achieve fascial closure without extensive preparation, Eucker et al from Switzerland started using fascial traction for CAWR in 2012 and published their first case series in 2017 [12]. At the same time the conceptualization of vertical fascial traction using an external device was developed by Lill from Germany, first proven in an animal model and afterwards used for open abdomen treatment [13, 14]. After fusing the concepts, intraoperative fascial traction (IFT) was introduced as a new technique in CAWR and the first case series was published in 2021 by Niebuhr et al. showing promising results [15].
Literature Review
Since the introduction of the concept by Eucker et al. in 2017 several publications have shown the outcomes of IFT. The first paper on abdominal wall expander system (AWEX) including 10 patients with a median hernia width of 12.0 cm reported a closure rate of 60% and a mean reduction of fascia-to-fascia distance of 8.5 cm [12]. In 2022 follow-up data on AWEX were published including 33 cases. Median hernia width in this cohort was 13.0 cm. Complete fascial closure was achieved in 20 cases (60.6%) and 1 recurrence (3%) after a median follow-up of 29 months was reported [16]. Also showing promising data, performing AWEX using a non-standardised, “self-built” mechanism seems to lead to a relatively low closure rate. In 2021, first results were published for large incisional hernia repair using fasciotens®Abdomen (Fasciotens GmbH, Germany) which was initially developed for open abdomen treatment allowing to apply controlled, reproducible and quantifiable traction. A total of 21 patients with a mean intraoperative measured defect width of 17.3 cm were included in this prospective observational trial. 13 patients were pretreated with Botulinum Toxin A (BTA). An overall closure rate of 100% and Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO) rate of 19% was reported [15]. The results were confirmed in a retrospective analysis of 50 cases showing a closure rate of 90% and SSO rate of 12% [17]. Most recently, Woeste et al. published the results of a follow-up of 100 patients treated with IFT [18]. The mean follow-up time was 19.6 months in this cohort. BTA was administered preoperatively in 87% of the cases and TAR was added in 28%. On average, the defect size was 15.8 cm and fascial closure was achieved in 94% of all cases. The SSO rate was 33%, however 54.5% were seromas. Having a relatively small mean mesh width of 22.6 cm, a recurrence rate of only 2% was reported, which may emphasise the importance of ARS closure.
The clinical effect of IFT in terms of medialisation of the lateral abdominal wall was also confirmed in a cadaver study [19]. Retrorectus dissection was first carried out in a total of four fresh frozen specimens. Subsequently, IFT was applied for 30 min. The mean medial advancement was 10.5 cm, which is in line with clinical findings [15, 17, 20]. In 2024, we reported on 143 cases treated at the Hamburg Hernia Centre [20]. All patients in this cohort received Botulinum Toxin A 4 weeks prior to surgery and IFT was also used in all cases. The mean hernia width was 16.9 cm and 68.5% of the patients had a transverse hernia size above 15 cm. The patient cohort was divided into subgroups as shown in Table 1. It shows that closure rates of 95% can be achieved for cases up to 15 cm of hernia width. However, closure rates decline especially above 19 cm and bridging becomes more likely even with higher TAR rates (48.6% in subgroup 3).
TABLE 1
| | Subgroup 1 | Subgroup 2 | Subgroup 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients (total number = 143) | 45 | 61 | 37 |
| Defect width [cm] | 8 - >15 | 15–19 | >19 |
| Lateral or additional lateral defect rate | 4/45 (8.9%) | 7/61 (11.5%) | 4/37 (10.8%) |
| Closure rate | 43/45 (95.6% | 48/61 (78.7%) | 12/37 (32.4%) |
| TAR rate | 7/45 (15.6%) | 18/61 (29.5%) | 18/37 (48.6%) |
| Intraoperative complication rate | 0/45 (0%) | 2/61 (3.3%) | 3/37 (8.1%) |
| SSO | 11/45 (24.4%) | 17/61 (27.9%) | 15/37 (40.5%) |
| SSI | 4/45 (8.9%) | 6/61 (9.8%) | 9/37 (24.3%) |
| Re-operation | 5/45 (11.1%) | 10/61 (16.4%) | 7/37 (18.9%) |
Subgroup analysis in relation to hernia defect width based on Niebuhr et al., Springer Hernia [20]. SSO surgical site occurrences, SSI surgical site infections, TAR transversus abdominis muscle release.
Hamburg Algorithm 2.0
Based on the results an initial Hamburg algorithm for CAWR was presented. Since then, we have further adapted the algorithm following our ongoing clinical experience and feedback from conferences and discussions with colleagues. We now propose an approach based on the subgroups for the treatment of ventral hernias in order to address the raising complexity associated with an increase in defect width (see Figure 1). It is important to note that the defect width is only one criterion for the complexity of a hernia and that each patient requires a tailored approach. The decision-making process depends on whether ARS closure can be achieved after each step of the algorithm. The elements of the algorithm will be discussed in detail below.
FIGURE 1
The Hamburg algorithm 2.0 for complex abdominal wall repair. IFT, Intraoperative Fascial Traction; TAR, Transversus Abdominis Muscle Release; ACS, Anterior Component Separation.
Subgroup 1/2 – Hernia Width Below 19 cm
The analysis of 143 patients treated with BTA and IFT has shown that anterior sheath closure rates of 96% for defects with a transverse diameter below 15 cm and 79% for defects below 19 cm in width can be achieved [20]. The procedure for these patients therefore initially consists of peritoneal flap preparation and retromuscular dissection according to Rives-Stoppa [21]. If the anterior layer of the rectus sheath can be closed under moderate tension, IFT is not performed. If fascial closure is not possible, IFT will be carried out. Only if closure is still not possible afterwards component separation is added. In rare cases peritoneal flap closure or mesh bridging should be considered [22].
Subgroup 3 - Hernia Width Above 19 cm
The patient cohort having a defect width above 19 cm showed a relatively low complete closure rate of around 32% [20]. Therefore, TAR or ACS is performed in these patients before IFT is applied. If closure is still not possible afterwards, peritoneal flap closure or mesh bridging should be considered [22].
Discussion
Indication
In our own experience, IFT achieves a different range in terms of medialisation of the lateral abdominal wall in a (naturally) heterogeneous patient population. The EHS classification for ventral hernias has strongly helped to standardise hernia characteristics, but every CAWR surgeon knows that each complex hernia is different and needs an individualised treatment plan [1, 23]. Therefore, although it can generally be said that IFT is used in the vast majority of cases for ventral hernias with a diameter above 10 cm, it is difficult to predict the definitive length gain preoperatively. Nevertheless, its use does not have to be determined in advance of the operation; rather, it should be used on demand, namely, at the moment when low-tension closure of the ARS after Rives-Stoppa preparation appears difficult. Additionally, IFT should be considered in any case of CAWR with visceroabdominal disproportion which is often the case in Loss of Domain (LOD) hernias. Hence, it has also been previously used in flank and massive scrotal hernias.
Prehabilitation
Thorough preoperative assessment and planning are key to reducing postoperative risk for complications and recurrence. In addition to the clinical examination, a CT or MRI scan of the abdomen should be performed at rest and during the Valsalva manoeuvre in order to assess the extent of the hernia and plan the operation. Several risk factors have been identified to negatively influence postoperative outcomes. It is very important to perform an individual risk assessment with each patient and to identify potential improvement. To visualise the risk, the CeDAR (Carolinas Equation for Determining Associated Risks) app, which is available for free in the Apple and Android App Store, can be used. Additionally, the colleagues from the York Abdominal Wall Unit have developed a range of leaflets and easy to understand guidance documents for patients to help prepare for the surgery (available for free on the website: https://www.yorkhospitals.nhs.uk/our-services/organdonation/a-z-of-services/abdominal-wall-reconstruction/).
Prehabilitation covers a wide range of factors and influencing variables, with BMI, smoking and diabetes among the most influential. A BMI below 30 kg/m2 should be aimed for as it significantly decreases the risk for SSO and recurrence [24, 25]. However, each patient needs a realistic and individual goal for weight loss in order to achieve a lasting effect in the best-case scenario. The same applies to nicotine cessation. Smoking has a significant impact on SSO, wound infections and recurrence rates and therefore patients should stop at least 4 weeks prior to surgery [26, 27]. As is widely known, diabetes has a strong influence on wound morbidities and infections [28]. As CAWR is associated with extensive preparation and large wound areas, strict preoperative control of diabetes is recommended.
Botulinum Toxin A
Administration of Botulinum Toxin A in the lateral abdominal wall muscles to achieve temporary muscle relaxation was first described in 2009 [29]. Different dosages and number of administration points have been described [29–31]. Hernia defect width reduction was reported to be between approx. 4–6 cm [31]. In our practice BTA is mainly used in cases above 10 cm in width. However, it should be noted that BTA administration in the abdominal wall is an off-label use. The FDA issued a mandated black box warning already back in 2009 concerning the risk of botulism-like symptoms such as muscle weakness, dysphagia and aspiration which can be life-threatening [32–34]. Therefore, the use of BTA should be weighed carefully and especially patients with lung disease should be treated very cautiously with BTA [35].
Peritoneal Flap and Rives-Stoppa
We strongly believe that the retrorectus dissection according to Rives and Stoppa is the foundation of every (midline) CAWR [21]. The technique is elementary and should be understood by every AWR surgeon. Therefore, we will not go into detail about the procedure itself and refer to detailed descriptions elsewhere. [36, 37]. If possible, the hernia sac should always be preserved until complete fascial closure of both rectus sheaths is achieved. We usually perform the preparation of the hernia sac according to the peritoneal flap technique [22]. Contrary to the initial description of the technique, in our approach, we leave 2/3 of the hernia sac on the PRS on one side and 1/3 on the ARS on the contralateral side. Performing IFT usually requires narrower bridging on the ARS if complete fascial closure is not possible. In the majority of cases a complete ARS closure is achievable. In these cases, the hernia sac attached to the ARS is resected.
Intraoperative Fascial Traction
Applying IFT does not only involve fascial traction but also a certain approach to restoring the abdominal wall. Part of the flap is regularly used to “bridge” the posterior rectus sheath (PSR) if low-tension direct closure is not possible. Early biomechanical research has shown that the PSR is less resistant to pressure forces and more prone to bursting [38]. Therefore, we see it as less important for abdominal wall strength and the main goal should be a reliable layer between the abdominal organs and the augmenting mesh in sublay position. Before applying IFT, the mesh can already be placed. The fixation of the mesh is an ongoing debate that should be done according to house standards. In our practice the mesh is normally only fixated cranially and caudally with one stitch.
After mesh placement, the prosthetic and the (preperitoneal) landing zone are covered with several (2–4) moist abdominal cloths. The traction forces which are applied by an external device (fasciotens®Hernia, Fasciotens GmbH, Germany) are distributed on the fascia by using polyfilamentel USP 2 sutures. 6 sutures per side are anchored in the ARS in a U-shape manner. After placing the sutures, they are crossed to mimic a diagonal directed traction. The sutures are connected to the suture holder of the device and fascial traction is carried out. Normally traction forces of approx. 14 kg are applied which can gradually be increased to about 18 kg. IFT should be maintained for about 30 min and traction sutures should be individually retightened every 2 minutes. Otherwise, traction forces cannot be distributed sufficiently on the fascia. It is very important to have complete muscle relaxation during IFT. The muscle tone works as an antagonist and can lead to a poor outcome. After IFT, sutures are disconnected from the external device and uncrossed. The abdominal cloths are removed and ARS closure is carried out according to the concept of small steps–small bites [39–41].
Eucker et al. have shown that promising results can also be achieved using the AWEX system based on a self-built mechanism. However, using an external device which allows quantifiable traction seems to lead to higher closure rates as shown in the literature review section. It should also be considered that quantifiable and reproducible traction helps to standardise treatment and to compare outcomes. It can also reassure patients and might prevent medicolegal consequences in case of complications or misfunction. Following that, even when self-built, surgeons should follow standardisation and at least measure the applied traction forces.
Component Separation
Any type of CS might be added according to the patient’s needs as outlined above. It should be considered especially in the case of TAR for what purpose it is performed (mesh overlap, additional lateral defect, closure of the PRS). Studies have shown that TAR is less effective in terms of ARS medialisation compared to ACS [42, 43]. Therefore, ACS still plays a role when it comes to anterior fascial closure. To reduce the risk of SSO, a minimally invasive approach has proven useful [44, 45].
Sublay Mesh Augmentation
There is an ongoing debate regarding mesh size and overlap in CAWR. Some still recommend a 5 cm overlap in all directions although the data showing an advantage were derived from laparoscopic IPOM procedures without fascial closure [46]. A recent report from the Danish national patients registry showed that a 10–15 cm mesh width in open ventral hernia repair seems to have favourable outcomes in terms of long-term recurrence rates [47]. They also mention that “overlap” is not an appropriate term if the hernia gap is closed and the midline is restored (as it was done in all cases of the aforementioned study). Hence, if the fascial defect is closed, a smaller mesh covering only the retrorectus space might be sufficient. Supporting this, the follow-up published by Woeste et al. regarding CAWR using IFT showed a relatively low recurrence rate of only 2% in 100 patients. Interestingly, the mean mesh width in this cohort was 22.6 cm and a recurrence was found in one patient without TAR and in one patient treated with an additional TAR [18].
Anterior Rectus Sheath Closure
Although IFT can facilitate fascial closure and has shown closure rates above 90% even in large defects, it is noteworthy that the decision to restore the midline or to pursue a direct fascial closure should be taken with caution. In our practice, we have seen cases of elevated intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) directly after surgery but never faced a subsequent abdominal compartment syndrome. Therefore, some colleagues perform intraoperative measurement of IAP [48]. In order to streamline intraoperative decision-making, close communication with the anaesthetists is necessary regarding peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), particularly while performing IFT. Colleagues from Portugal have shown, that an increased PIP after fascial closure can lead to a postoperative abdominal compartment syndrome [49]. Following their algorithm, we have found PIP variations between 1 and 3 mmHg tolerable, variations above 4 mmHg should be closely monitored (admission to ICU postoperatively). The paper states that only PIP variations above 10 mmHg should lead to bridging. However, we recommend being more cautious and might performing bridging even at lower values. The data so far only present small numbers. Therefore, no general recommendations can be made, and the proposed ranges should only be used as a decision-making aid. If bridging is unavoidable, we normally use a second synthetic mesh as an inlay bridging (ARS). To avoid exposure of the mesh in case of subcutaneous infection or seroma, it is helpful to cover the mesh with residual hernia sac in the style of the peritoneal flap technique [22].
Limitations
The algorithm presented here is primarily based on single-centre data from a specialised hernia centre. In order to create a simple guideline, hernia width was used as the primary decision criterion. Of course, other factors such as BMI, loss of domain, scarring processes and muscular compliance also play an important role and can influence the surgical procedure. Although initial long-term data is available, further studies with longer follow-up are necessary. In addition, there is currently a lack of prospective comparative studies to identify the advantages and disadvantages of IFT in comparison to other CAWR techniques.
Conclusion
IFT is a promising technique in CAWR to facilitate fascial closure and restoration of the abdominal wall without extensive preparation as with component separation techniques. Naturally, there are limits and restrictions on its use and every patient with a complex hernia needs a tailored approach and should be treated individually. The achievable medialisation of the abdominal wall differs among patients and is influenced by the anatomy and condition of the lateral abdominal wall. Therefore, IFT is one tool in the CAWR surgeon’s toolbox and should only be used by experienced and dedicated AWR units.
Statements
Author contributions
HN conceived the article and was responsible for preparing and writing the manuscript. CW and SB assisted with literature research and conception and contributed to the references. HD, WR, GW, and FK contributed to the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
Authors CW and SB were employed by Fasciotens GmbH. HN and GW have performed financially compensated workshops for P. J. Dahlhausen und Co. mbH for complex hernia repair with IFT and Dynamesh meshes.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1.
Sanders DL Pawlak MM Simons MP Aufenacker T Balla A Berger C et al Midline Incisional Hernia Guidelines: The European Hernia Society. Br J Surg (2023) 110:1732–68. 10.1093/bjs/znad284
2.
Luijendijk RW Hop WCJ Van Den Tol MP de Lange DC Braaksma MM Ijzermans JN et al A Comparison of Suture Repair with Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernia. N Engl J Med (2000) 343:392–8. 10.1056/NEJM200008103430603
3.
Burger JWA Luijendijk RW Hop WCJ Halm JA Verdaasdonk EGG 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. 10.1097/01.sla.0000141193.08524.e7
4.
Venclauskas L Maleckas A Kiudelis M . One-Year Follow-Up After Incisional Hernia Treatment: Results of a Prospective Randomized Study. Hernia (2010) 14:575–82. 10.1007/s10029-010-0686-8
5.
Demetrashvili Z Pipia I Loladze D Metreveli T Ekaladze E Kenchadze G et al Open Retromuscular Mesh Repair Versus Onlay Technique of Incisional Hernia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Surg (2017) 37:65–70. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.12.008
6.
Booth JH Garvey PB Baumann DP Selber JC Nguyen AT Clemens MW et al Primary Fascial Closure with Mesh Reinforcement Is Superior to Bridged Mesh Repair for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction. J Am Coll Surgeons (2013) 217:999–1009. 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.08.015
7.
Maloney SR Schlosser KA Prasad T Kasten KR Gersin KS Colavita PD et al Twelve Years of Component Separation Technique in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction. Surgery (2019) 166:435–44. 10.1016/j.surg.2019.05.043
8.
Capoccia Giovannini S Podda M Ribas S Montori G Botteri E Agresta F et al What Defines an Incisional Hernia as ‘Complex’: Results from a Delphi Consensus Endorsed by the European Hernia Society (EHS). Br J Surg (2024) 111:znad346. 10.1093/bjs/znad346
9.
Albanese AR . Gigantic Median Xipho-Umbilical Eventration; Method for Treatment. Rev Asoc Med Argent (1951) 65:376–8.
10.
Ramirez OM Ruas E Dellon AL . “Components Separation” Method for Closure of Abdominal-Wall Defects: An Anatomic and Clinical Study. Plast Reconstr Surg (1990) 86:519–26. 10.1097/00006534-199009000-00023
11.
Novitsky YW Elliott HL Orenstein SB Rosen MJ . Transversus Abdominis Muscle Release: A Novel Approach to Posterior Component Separation During Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction. The Am J Surg (2012) 204:709–16. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.02.008
12.
Eucker D Zerz A Steinemann DC . Abdominal Wall Expanding System Obviates the Need for Lateral Release in Giant Incisional Hernia and Laparostoma. Surg Innov (2017) 24:455–61. 10.1177/1553350617718065
13.
Fung SN Vaghiri S Ashmawy H* Kropil F Rehders A Knoefel WT . Fasciotens© Abdomen ICU: Novel Device Prevents Abominal Wall Retraction and Facilitates Early Abdominal Wall Closure of Septic Open Abdomen. Surg and Case Stud Open Access J (2019) 4:354–8. 10.32474/SCSOAJ.2019.04.000177
14.
Eickhoff R Guschlbauer M Maul AC Klink CD Neumann UP Engel M et al A New Device to Prevent Fascial Retraction in the Open Abdomen – Proof of Concept in vivo. BMC Surg (2019) 19:82. 10.1186/s12893-019-0543-3
15.
Niebuhr H Aufenberg T Dag H Reinpold W Peiper C Schardey HM et al Intraoperative Fascia Tension as an Alternative to Component Separation. A Prospective Observational Study. Front Surg (2021) 7:616669. 10.3389/fsurg.2020.616669
16.
Eucker D Rüedi N Luedtke C Stern O Niebuhr H Zerz A et al Abdominal Wall Expanding System. Intraoperative Abdominal Wall Expansion as a Technique to Repair Giant Incisional Hernia and Laparostoma. New and Long-Term Results from a Three-Center Feasibility Study. Surg Innov (2022) 29:169–82. 10.1177/15533506211041477
17.
Niebuhr H Malaibari ZO Köckerling F Reinpold W Dag H Eucker D et al Intraoperative Faszientraktion (IFT) Zur Behandlung Großer Ventraler Hernien: Eine Retrospektive Analyse Von 50 Fällen. Chirurg (2022) 93:292–8. 10.1007/s00104-021-01552-0
18.
Woeste G Dascalescu S Wegner F Meier H Sardoschau N Kiehle A et al Follow-Up of Complex Hernia Repair with Intraoperative Fascial Traction. Hernia (2025) 29:154. 10.1007/s10029-025-03297-9
19.
Niebuhr H Reinpold W Morgenroth F Berger C Dag H Wehrenberg U et al Assessment of Myofascial Medialization Following Intraoperative Fascial Traction (IFT) in a Cadaveric Model. Hernia (2024) 28:1187–93. 10.1007/s10029-024-03003-1
20.
Niebuhr H Wegner F Dag H Reinpold W Woeste G Köckerling F . Preoperative Botolinum Toxin A (BTA) and Intraoperative Fascial Traction (IFT) in the Management of Complex Abdominal Wall Hernias. Hernia (2024) 28:2273–83. 10.1007/s10029-024-03156-z
21.
Stoppa R Ralaimiaramanana F Henry X Verhaeghe P . Evolution of Large Ventral Incisional Hernia Repair. The French Contribution to a Difficult Problem. Hernia (1999) 3:1–3. 10.1007/BF01576729
22.
Nielsen MF De Beaux A Tulloh B . Peritoneal Flap Hernioplasty for Reconstruction of Large Ventral Hernias: Long‐Term Outcome in 251 Patients. World J Surg (2019) 43:2157–63. 10.1007/s00268-019-05011-0
23.
Muysoms FE Miserez M Berrevoet F Campanelli G Champault GG Chelala E et al Classification of Primary and Incisional Abdominal Wall Hernias. Hernia (2009) 13:407–14. 10.1007/s10029-009-0518-x
24.
Giordano SA Garvey PB Baumann DP Liu J Butler CE . The Impact of Body Mass Index on Abdominal Wall Reconstruction Outcomes: A Comparative Study. Plast and Reconstr Surg (2017) 139:1234–44. 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003264
25.
Bhardwaj P Huayllani MT Olson MA Janis JE . Year-Over-Year Ventral Hernia Recurrence Rates and Risk Factors. JAMA Surg (2024) 159:651–8. 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.0233
26.
DeLancey JO Blay E Hewitt DB Engelhardt K Bilimoria KY Holl JL et al The Effect of Smoking on 30-Day Outcomes in Elective Hernia Repair. The Am J Surg (2018) 216:471–4. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.03.004
27.
Da Silveira CAB Rasador AC Lima DL Kasmirski J Kasakewitch JPG Nogueira R et al The Impact of Smoking on Ventral and Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Hernia (2024) 28:2079–95. 10.1007/s10029-024-03122-9
28.
Messer N Miller BT Beffa LRA Petro CC Krpata DM de Figueiredo SMP et al The Impact of Diabetes and Presurgical Glycemic Control on Wound Morbidity Following Open Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A Single-Center Experience. Hernia (2024) 28:2291–300. 10.1007/s10029-024-03161-2
29.
Ibarra-Hurtado TR Nuño-Guzmán CM Echeagaray-Herrera JE Robles-Vélez E de Jesús González-Jaime J . Use of Botulinum Toxin Type a Before Abdominal Wall Hernia Reconstruction. World J Surg (2009) 33:2553–6. 10.1007/s00268-009-0203-3
30.
Elstner KE Jacombs ASW Read JW Rodriguez O Edye M Cosman PH et al Laparoscopic Repair of Complex Ventral Hernia Facilitated by Pre-Operative Chemical Component Relaxation Using Botulinum Toxin A. Hernia (2016) 20:209–19. 10.1007/s10029-016-1478-6
31.
Whitehead-Clarke T Windsor A . The Use of Botulinum Toxin in Complex Hernia Surgery: Achieving a Sense of Closure. Front Surg (2021) 8:753889. 10.3389/fsurg.2021.753889
32.
Kuehn BM . FDA Requires Black Box Warnings on Labeling for Botulinum Toxin Products. JAMA (2009) 301:2316. 10.1001/jama.2009.780
33.
Remulla D Woo KP Bennett WC Carvalho A Slatnick BL Blackman MH et al Predicting Fascial Non-Closure in Ventral Hernia Repair with Transversus Abdominis Release: Risk Factors, Clinical Outcomes, and Implications for Surgical Planning. Hernia (2025) 29:268. 10.1007/s10029-025-03455-z
34.
Frazão J Pera R De Sousa X Fragoso M Mira P . Iatrogenic Botulism Following Botulinum Toxin Injection as an Adjunct to Abdominal Wall Reconstruction for Incisional Hernia. Cureus (2024) 16:e73773. 10.7759/cureus.73773
35.
Zwaans WAR Timmer AS Boermeester MA . Preoperative Botulinum Toxin-A Injections Prior to Abdominal Wall Reconstruction Can Lead to Cardiopulmonary Complications. J Abdom Wall Surg (2024) 3:13433. 10.3389/jaws.2024.13433
36.
Fagenholz P . Rives-Stoppa Retromuscular Repair for Incisional. Hernia (2023) JOMI. 10.24296/jomi/285
37.
Rhemtulla I Fischer J . Retromuscular Sublay Technique for Ventral Hernia Repair. Semin Plast Surg (2018) 32:120–6. 10.1055/s-0038-1666800
38.
Rath AM Zhang J Chevrel JP . The Sheath of the Rectus Abdominis Muscle: An Anatomical and Biomechanical Study. Hernia (1997) 1:139–42. 10.1007/BF02426420
39.
Fortelny RH Baumann P Hofmann A Riedl S Kewer JL Hoelderle J et al 5-Year Clinical Outcome of the ESTOIH Trial Comparing the Short-Bite Versus Large-Bite Technique for Elective Midline Abdominal Closure. Hernia (2025) 29:263. 10.1007/s10029-025-03459-9
40.
Theodorou A Banysch M Gök H Deerenberg EB Kalff JC von Websky MW . Don’T Fear the (Small) Bite: A Narrative Review of the Rationale and Misconceptions Surrounding Closure of Abdominal Wall Incisions. Front Surg (2022) 9:1002558. 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1002558
41.
Deerenberg EB Harlaar JJ Steyerberg EW Lont HE van Doorn HC Heisterkamp J et al Small Bites Versus Large Bites for Closure of Abdominal Midline Incisions (STITCH): A Double-Blind, Multicentre, Randomised Controlled Trial. The Lancet (2015) 386:1254–60. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60459-7
42.
Loh CYY Nizamoglu M Shanmugakrishnan RR Tan A Brassett C Lovett B et al Comparing Transversus Abdominus Release and Anterior Component Separation Techniques in Reconstructing Midline Hernias: A Cadaveric Study. J Plast Reconstr and Aesthet Surg (2018) 71:1507–17. 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.06.005
43.
Sneiders D Yurtkap Y Kroese LF Jeekel J Muysoms FE Kleinrensink GJ et al Anatomical Study Comparing Medialization After Rives-Stoppa, Anterior Component Separation, and Posterior Component Separation. Surgery (2019) 165:996–1002. 10.1016/j.surg.2018.11.013
44.
Jørgensen LN Jensen KK . Endoscopic Anterior Component Separation: How we do it?Int J Abdom Wall Hernia Surg (2022) 5:8–12. 10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_51_21
45.
Rosen MJ Jin J McGee MF Williams C Marks J Ponsky JL . Laparoscopic Component Separation in the Single-Stage Treatment of Infected Abdominal Wall Prosthetic Removal. Hernia (2007) 11:435–40. 10.1007/s10029-007-0255-y
46.
LeBlanc K . Proper Mesh Overlap Is a Key Determinant in Hernia Recurrence Following Laparoscopic Ventral and Incisional Hernia Repair. Hernia (2016) 20:85–99. 10.1007/s10029-015-1399-9
47.
Marckmann M Henriksen NA Kiim KS . Abandoning Mesh “Overlap” in Favor of “Width” and Its Importance in Open Retromuscular Midline Incisional Hernia Repair: A Nationwide Database Study. Hernia (2025) 29:237. 10.1007/s10029-025-03423-7
48.
Oliveira E Silva PDD Melo RMD Gontijo CEDS Oliveira ÊCD . Intra-Abdominal Pressure Monitoring During Lázaro Da Silva’s Procedure for Ventral Hernia Repair: A Cross-Sectional Study. Abcd, Arq Bras Cir Dig (2024) 37:e1813. 10.1590/0102-6720202400020e1813
49.
Quintela C Freire L Marrana F Barbosa E Guerreiro E Ferreira FC . Quaternary Abdominal Compartment Syndrome in Complex Ventral Hernias. Int J Abdom Wall Hernia Surg (2021) 4:39–44. 10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_43_20
Summary
Keywords
abdominal wall reconstruction, fascial traction, fasciotens, IFT, ventral hernia repair
Citation
Niebuhr H, Woeste G, Winkler C, Behle S, Reinpold W, Dag H and Köckerling F (2026) Intraoperative Fascial Traction - From Concept to Comprehensive Application. J. Abdom. Wall Surg. 5:16018. doi: 10.3389/jaws.2026.16018
Received
08 December 2025
Revised
06 January 2026
Accepted
20 January 2026
Published
06 February 2026
Volume
5 - 2026
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Niebuhr, Woeste, Winkler, Behle, Reinpold, Dag and Köckerling.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: H. Niebuhr, h.niebuhr@hernie.de
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.