Literature DB >> 25105388

Component separation with porcine acellular dermal reinforcement is superior to traditional bridged mesh repairs in the open repair of significant midline ventral hernia defects.

Bryan Richmond1, Adam Ubert, Rudy Judhan, Jonathan King, Tanner Harrah, Benjamin Dyer, Stephanie Thompson.   

Abstract

The optimal technique for complex ventral hernia repair (VHR) remains controversial. Component separation (CS) reinforced with porcine acellular dermal matrix (PADM) has shown favorable results compared with series of conventional bridged VHR, but few comparative studies exist. We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing 40 randomly selected patients who underwent CS/PADM reinforcement against an identical number of patients who underwent conventional open VHR with mesh at our institution. Patient characteristics, operative findings, outcomes, complications, reoperations, and recurrences were obtained by chart review. Fisher's exact/t test compared outcomes between the two cohorts. Statistical significance was set as P < 0.05. Mean follow-up was 33.1 months. Patient groups did not differ significantly in race (P = 1.00), age (P = 0.82), body mass index (P = 0.14), or comorbid conditions (smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity, steroid use; P values 0.60, 0.29, 0.08, and 0.56, respectively). Defect size was greater in the CS/PADM group (mean, 372.5 vs 283.7 cm(2), P = 0.01) as was the percentage Ventral Hernia Working Group Grade III/IV hernias (65.0 vs 30.0%, P = 0.03). Recurrences were lower in the CS/PADM group (13.2 vs 37.5%, P = 0.02). Mesh infection was lower in the CS/PADM group (0 vs 23% in the bridged group, P = 0.002), all of which occurred with synthetic mesh. Indications for reoperation (recurrence or complications requiring reoperation) were also lower in the CS/PADM group (17.5 vs 52.5%, P = 0.002). Superior results are achieved with CS/PADM reinforcement over traditional bridged VHR. This is evidenced by lower recurrence rates and overall complications requiring reoperation, particularly mesh infection. This is despite the greater use of CS in larger defects and contaminated hernias (VHWG Grade III and IV). CS/PADM reinforcement should be strongly considered for the repair of significant midline ventral hernia defects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25105388      PMCID: PMC4476308     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Surg        ISSN: 0003-1348            Impact factor:   0.688


  26 in total

1.  A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia.

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

2.  Non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrices for abdominal wall reconstruction.

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

3.  Endoscopic versus open component separation in complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

Authors:  Karem C Harth; Michael J Rosen
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  "Components separation" method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study.

Authors:  O M Ramirez; E Ruas; A L Dellon
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Mechanical failure of a lightweight polypropylene mesh.

Authors:  L A D Lintin; A N Kingsnorth
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 4.739

6.  Utilization of human cadaveric acellular dermis for abdominal hernia reconstruction.

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

7.  Infection risk of open placement of intraperitoneal composite mesh.

Authors:  William S Cobb; Alfredo M Carbonell; Corey L Kalbaugh; Yonge Jones; Jonathan S Lokey
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 0.688

8.  Multi-institutional experience using human acellular dermal matrix for ventral hernia repair in a compromised surgical field.

Authors:  Jose J Diaz; Anne M Conquest; Steven J Ferzoco; Daniel Vargo; Preston Miller; Yi-Chen Wu; Rafe Donahue
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2009-03

9.  Have outcomes of incisional hernia repair improved with time? A population-based analysis.

Authors:  David R Flum; Karen Horvath; Thomas Koepsell
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Late complications of incisional hernias following prosthetic mesh repair.

Authors:  M Basoglu; M I Yildirgan; I Yilmaz; A Balik; F Celebi; S S Atamanalp; K Y Polat; D Oren
Journal:  Acta Chir Belg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 1.090

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Practical Approaches to Definitive Reconstruction of Complex Abdominal Wall Defects.

Authors:  Rifat Latifi
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  A meta-analysis comparing open anterior component separation with posterior component separation and transversus abdominis release in the repair of midline ventral hernias.

Authors:  J D Hodgkinson; C A Leo; Y Maeda; P Bassett; S M Oke; C J Vaizey; J Warusavitarne
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 3.  Component Separation vs. Bridged Repair for Large Ventral Hernias: A Multi-Institutional Risk-Adjusted Comparison, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Julie L Holihan; Eric P Askenasy; Jacob A Greenberg; Jerrod N Keith; Robert G Martindale; J Scott Roth; Jiandi Mo; Tien C Ko; Lillian S Kao; Mike K Liang
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 2.150

4.  Incarcerated and eventrated abdominal wall hernia reconstruction with autologous double-layer dermal graft in the field of purulent peritonitis-A case report.

Authors:  Gábor Martis; Máté Rózsahegyi; János Deák; László Damjanovich
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2016-12-06

5.  Pre-operative CT scan measurements for predicting complications in patients undergoing complex ventral hernia repair using the component separation technique.

Authors:  H Winters; L Knaapen; O R Buyne; S Hummelink; D J O Ulrich; H van Goor; E van Geffen; N J Slater
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 4.739

6.  Long-term outcomes after contaminated complex abdominal wall reconstruction.

Authors:  F E E de Vries; J D Hodgkinson; J J M Claessen; O van Ruler; C A Leo; Y Maeda; O Lapid; M C Obdeijn; P J Tanis; W A Bemelman; J Constantinides; G B Hanna; J Warusavitarne; C Vaizey; M A Boermeester
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 4.739

Review 7.  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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.