Literature DB >> 22965235

Bovine versus porcine acellular dermal matrix for complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

Mark W Clemens1, Jesse C Selber, Jun Liu, David M Adelman, Donald P Baumann, Patrick B Garvey, Charles E Butler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Abdominal wall reconstruction with bioprosthetic mesh is associated with lower rates of mesh infection, fistula formation, and mesh explantation than reconstruction with synthetic mesh. The authors directly compared commonly used bioprosthetic meshes in terms of clinical outcomes and complications.
METHODS: A database of consecutive patients who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction with porcine or bovine acellular dermal matrix and midline musculofascial closure at their institution between January of 2008 and March of 2011 was reviewed. Surgical outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients were identified who underwent a nonbridged, inlay abdominal wall reconstruction with porcine [69 patients (57.5 percent)] or bovine acellular dermal matrix (51 patients (42.5 percent)]. The mean follow-up time was 21.0 ± 9.9 months. The overall complication rate was 36.6 percent; the porcine matrix group had a significantly higher complication rate (44.9 percent) than the bovine matrix group (25.5 percent; p = 0.04) and statistically equivalent surgical complications (29.2 percent versus 21.6 percent; p = 0.34). There were no significant differences in rates of recurrent hernia (2.9 percent versus 3.9 percent; p = 0.99) or bulge (7.2 percent versus 0 percent; p = 0.07). However, the rate of intraoperative adverse events in the porcine matrix group [seven events (10.1 percent)] was significantly higher than that in the bovine matrix group (0 percent; p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients who undergo complex abdominal wall reconstruction, both bovine and porcine acellular dermal matrix are associated with similar rates of postoperative surgical complications and appear to result in similar outcomes. Porcine acellular dermal matrix may be prone to intraoperative device failure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22965235     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182729e58

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  13 in total

Review 1.  Surgical mesh for ventral incisional hernia repairs: Understanding mesh design.

Authors:  Ali Rastegarpour; Michael Cheung; Madhurima Vardhan; Mohamed M Ibrahim; Charles E Butler; Howard Levinson
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 0.947

2.  Comparison of outcomes of ventral hernia repair using different meshes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  H Zhou; Y Shen; Z Zhang; X Liu; J Zhang; J Chen
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 2.920

3.  Impact of pericardium bovine patch (Tutomesh(®)) on incisional hernia treatment in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields: retrospective comparative study.

Authors:  A Gurrado; I F Franco; G Lissidini; G Greco; M De Fazio; A Pasculli; A Girardi; G Piccinni; V Memeo; M Testini
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 4.  Biologic Mesh in Surgery: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis of Selected Outcomes in 51 Studies and 6079 Patients.

Authors:  David J Samson; Mahir Gachabayov; Rifat Latifi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Clinical application of a silk fibroin protein biologic scaffold for abdominal wall fascial reinforcement.

Authors:  Mark W Clemens; Susan Downey; Frank Agullo; Max R Lehfeldt; Gabriel M Kind; Humberto Palladino; Deirdre Marshall; Mark L Jewell; Anshu B Mathur; Bradley P Bengtson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2014-12-05

6.  Bioprosthetic Versus Synthetic Mesh: Analysis of Tissue Adherence and Revascularization in an Experimental Animal Model.

Authors:  David M Adelman; Kevin G Cornwell
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2018-05-25

7.  Bioprosthetic tissue matrices in complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

Authors:  Justin M Broyles; Nicholas B Abt; Justin M Sacks; Charles E Butler
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2014-01-06

8.  Bovine versus Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Comparison of Mechanical Properties.

Authors:  David M Adelman; Jesse C Selber; Charles E Butler
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2014-06-06

Review 9.  What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

Authors:  F Köckerling; N N Alam; S A Antoniou; I R Daniels; F Famiglietti; R H Fortelny; M M Heiss; F Kallinowski; I Kyle-Leinhase; F Mayer; M Miserez; A Montgomery; S Morales-Conde; F Muysoms; S K Narang; A Petter-Puchner; W Reinpold; H Scheuerlein; M Smietanski; B Stechemesser; C Strey; G Woeste; N J Smart
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 4.739

10.  Fundamentals of Extracellular Matrix Biomaterial Assimilation: Effect of Suture Type on Attachment Strength and Cell Repopulation.

Authors:  David M Adelman; Kevin G Cornwell
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-03-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.