BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of ventral hernias, there is little agreement as to the most appropriate technique or prosthetic to repair these defects. Our objective was to determine biologic mesh practice patterns of reconstructive surgeons with regard to indications, most appropriate technique, choice of prosthetic, and experience with complications. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 2,000 practicing surgeons. Main outcome measures included surgeon experience with biologic mesh and associated complications. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty (12 %) surgeons responded to the survey. Ten were excluded, as surgeons completing the survey indicated they did not perform ventral hernia repairs or left multiple questions unanswered. Of the 230 included, 93.5 % (n = 215) of responders had experience using biologic mesh. Frequency of biologic graft use in the last year was as follows: low-volume users (<5 times in the last year) 50.7 %; medium-volume users (5-20 times in the last year) 37.3 %; high-volume users (>20 times in the last year) 11.9 %. Indications for biologic mesh use based on wound classifications (clean, clean contaminated, contaminated or dirty) were quite varied and lacked consensus among surgeons (p value < 0.05). The most commonly reported influences for use included personal experience (45 %), literature (28.3 %), and availability (17.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of level 1 evidence, biologic meshes are being used under various wound classifications. Importantly, use in clean and dirty-infected settings may reflect an inappropriate overuse of these expensive materials. To better guide surgeons, prospective, randomized trials should be undertaken to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes associated with these materials under the various surgical wound classifications.
BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of ventral hernias, there is little agreement as to the most appropriate technique or prosthetic to repair these defects. Our objective was to determine biologic mesh practice patterns of reconstructive surgeons with regard to indications, most appropriate technique, choice of prosthetic, and experience with complications. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 2,000 practicing surgeons. Main outcome measures included surgeon experience with biologic mesh and associated complications. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty (12 %) surgeons responded to the survey. Ten were excluded, as surgeons completing the survey indicated they did not perform ventral hernia repairs or left multiple questions unanswered. Of the 230 included, 93.5 % (n = 215) of responders had experience using biologic mesh. Frequency of biologic graft use in the last year was as follows: low-volume users (<5 times in the last year) 50.7 %; medium-volume users (5-20 times in the last year) 37.3 %; high-volume users (>20 times in the last year) 11.9 %. Indications for biologic mesh use based on wound classifications (clean, clean contaminated, contaminated or dirty) were quite varied and lacked consensus among surgeons (p value < 0.05). The most commonly reported influences for use included personal experience (45 %), literature (28.3 %), and availability (17.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lack of level 1 evidence, biologic meshes are being used under various wound classifications. Importantly, use in clean and dirty-infected settings may reflect an inappropriate overuse of these expensive materials. To better guide surgeons, prospective, randomized trials should be undertaken to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes associated with these materials under the various surgical wound classifications.
Authors: Karl Breuing; Charles E Butler; Stephen Ferzoco; Michael Franz; Charles S Hultman; Joshua F Kilbridge; Michael Rosen; Ronald P Silverman; Daniel Vargo Journal: Surgery Date: 2010-03-20 Impact factor: 3.982
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: F E Muysoms; M Miserez; F Berrevoet; G Campanelli; G G Champault; E Chelala; U A Dietz; H H Eker; I El Nakadi; P Hauters; M Hidalgo Pascual; A Hoeferlin; U Klinge; A Montgomery; R K J Simmermacher; M P Simons; M Smietański; C Sommeling; T Tollens; T Vierendeels; A Kingsnorth Journal: Hernia Date: 2009-06-03 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: B De Simone; A Birindelli; L Ansaloni; M Sartelli; F Coccolini; S Di Saverio; V Annessi; F Amico; F Catena Journal: Hernia Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Yohann Renard; Louis de Mestier; Julie Henriques; Paul de Boissieu; Philippe de Mestier; Abe Fingerhut; Jean-Pierre Palot; Reza Kianmanesh Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: A Bravo-Salva; A M González-Castillo; F F Vela-Polanco; E Membrilla-Fernández; J Vila-Domenech; M Pera-Román; J J Sancho-Insenser; J A Pereira-Rodríguez Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: M Boules; A T Strong; R Corcelles; I N Haskins; R Ilie; C Wathen; D Froylich; G Sharma; J Rodriguez; S Rosenblatt; K El-Hayek; M Kroh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: M P Morris; J A Mellia; A N Christopher; M N Basta; V Patel; K Qiu; R B Broach; J P Fischer Journal: Hernia Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 4.739
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