INTRODUCTION: Hernia repairs in contaminated fields are often reinforced with a bioprosthetic mesh. When choosing which of the multiple musculofascial abdominal wall planes provides the most durable repair, there is little guidance. We hypothesized that the retro-rectus plane would reduce recurrence rates versus intraperitoneal placement due to greater surface area contact of mesh with well-vascularized tissue. METHODS: Forty-nine of the 80 patients in an ongoing, prospective, multicenter study of contaminated ventral hernia repairs (RICH study, NCT00617357) achieved fascial closure after musculofascial centralization and reinforcement with non-crosslinked porcine acellular dermal matrix (Strattice™, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ) and were retrospectively analyzed. The Strattice was placed in the retro-rectus position in 23 patients and in the intraperitoneal position in 26. RESULTS: Subjects were comparable in age, obesity, prior wound infection, presence of a stoma, and infected mesh removal (p > 0.05). More smokers were present in the intraperitoneal group (p = 0.02). Retro-rectus defects were significantly wider and had larger area than the intraperitoneal repairs. At the 1-year follow-up, 44 (90%) of patients were available for review. There was no difference in wound infections, seromas, or hematomas. Recurrent hernias were identified in 10% of retro-rectus repairs and 30% of intraperitoneal repairs (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter study of large, contaminated ventral hernias, despite a larger hernia defect in the retro-rectus group, placement of the mesh in the retro-rectus compartment resulted in a similar recurrence rate to intraperitoneal mesh placement. Ongoing evaluation is important to establish longer-term outcomes and the validity of these findings.
INTRODUCTION: Hernia repairs in contaminated fields are often reinforced with a bioprosthetic mesh. When choosing which of the multiple musculofascial abdominal wall planes provides the most durable repair, there is little guidance. We hypothesized that the retro-rectus plane would reduce recurrence rates versus intraperitoneal placement due to greater surface area contact of mesh with well-vascularized tissue. METHODS: Forty-nine of the 80 patients in an ongoing, prospective, multicenter study of contaminated ventral hernia repairs (RICH study, NCT00617357) achieved fascial closure after musculofascial centralization and reinforcement with non-crosslinked porcine acellular dermal matrix (Strattice™, LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ) and were retrospectively analyzed. The Strattice was placed in the retro-rectus position in 23 patients and in the intraperitoneal position in 26. RESULTS: Subjects were comparable in age, obesity, prior wound infection, presence of a stoma, and infected mesh removal (p > 0.05). More smokers were present in the intraperitoneal group (p = 0.02). Retro-rectus defects were significantly wider and had larger area than the intraperitoneal repairs. At the 1-year follow-up, 44 (90%) of patients were available for review. There was no difference in wound infections, seromas, or hematomas. Recurrent hernias were identified in 10% of retro-rectus repairs and 30% of intraperitoneal repairs (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter study of large, contaminated ventral hernias, despite a larger hernia defect in the retro-rectus group, placement of the mesh in the retro-rectus compartment resulted in a similar recurrence rate to intraperitoneal mesh placement. Ongoing evaluation is important to establish longer-term outcomes and the validity of these findings.
Authors: R W Luijendijk; W C Hop; M P van den Tol; D C de Lange; M M Braaksma; J N IJzermans; R U Boelhouwer; B C de Vries; M K Salu; J C Wereldsma; C M Bruijninckx; J Jeekel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-08-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nadja K Burns; Mona V Jaffari; Carmen N Rios; Anshu B Mathur; Charles E Butler Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Yuri W Novitsky; Justin R Porter; Zach C Rucho; Stanley B Getz; Broc L Pratt; Kent W Kercher; B Todd Heniford Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-07-13 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Antonio Espinosa-de-los-Monteros; Jorge I de la Torre; Ian Marrero; Patricio Andrades; Michael R Davis; Luis O Vásconez Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Corey W Iqbal; Tuan H Pham; Anthony Joseph; Jane Mai; Geoffrey B Thompson; Michael G Sarr Journal: World J Surg Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Judy Jin; Michael J Rosen; Jeffrey Blatnik; Michael F McGee; Christina P Williams; Jeffrey Marks; Jeffrey Ponsky Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-09-14 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: T S de Vries Reilingh; H van Goor; J A Charbon; C Rosman; E J Hesselink; G J van der Wilt; R P Bleichrodt Journal: World J Surg Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: P Giordano; R D Pullan; B Ystgaard; F Gossetti; M Bradburn; A J McKinley; N J Smart; I R Daniels Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: G Woeste; F-E Isemer; C W Strey; H-M Schardey; H Thielemann; A Mihaljevic; J Kleeff; J Kleef Journal: Chirurg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 0.955