Patrick B Garvey1, Roberto A Martinez1, Donald P Baumann1, Jun Liu1, Charles E Butler2. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: cbutler@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal type of mesh for complex abdominal wall reconstruction has not been elucidated. We hypothesized that AWRs using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) experience low rates of surgical site occurrence (SSO) and surgical site infection, despite increasing degrees of wound contamination. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from consecutive abdominal wall reconstructions with ADM over a 9-year period. Outcomes of abdominal wall reconstructions were compared between patients with different CDC wound classifications. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses identified potential associations and predictive/protective factors. RESULTS: The 359 patients had a mean follow-up of 28.3 ± 19.0 months. Reconstruction of clean wounds (n = 171) required fewer reoperations than that of combined contaminated (n = 188) wounds (2.3% vs 11.2%; p = 0.001) and trended toward experiencing fewer SSOs (19.9% vs 28.7%, p = 0.052). There were no significant differences between clean and combined contaminated cases in 30-day SSI (8.8% vs 8.0%), hernia recurrence (9.9% vs 10.1%), and mesh removal (1.2% vs 1.1%) rates. Independent predictors of SSO included body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2) (odds ratio [OR] 3.6; p < 0.001), 1 or more comorbidities (OR 2.5; p = 0.008), and defect width ≥15 cm (OR 1.8; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Complex abdominal wall reconstructions using ADM demonstrated similar rates of complications between the different CDC wound classifications. This is in contradistinction to published outcomes for abdominal wall reconstruction using synthetic mesh that show progressively higher complication rates with increasing degrees of contamination. These data support the use of ADM rather than synthetic mesh for complex abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of wound contamination.
BACKGROUND: The optimal type of mesh for complex abdominal wall reconstruction has not been elucidated. We hypothesized that AWRs using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) experience low rates of surgical site occurrence (SSO) and surgical site infection, despite increasing degrees of wound contamination. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from consecutive abdominal wall reconstructions with ADM over a 9-year period. Outcomes of abdominal wall reconstructions were compared between patients with different CDC wound classifications. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses identified potential associations and predictive/protective factors. RESULTS: The 359 patients had a mean follow-up of 28.3 ± 19.0 months. Reconstruction of clean wounds (n = 171) required fewer reoperations than that of combined contaminated (n = 188) wounds (2.3% vs 11.2%; p = 0.001) and trended toward experiencing fewer SSOs (19.9% vs 28.7%, p = 0.052). There were no significant differences between clean and combined contaminated cases in 30-day SSI (8.8% vs 8.0%), hernia recurrence (9.9% vs 10.1%), and mesh removal (1.2% vs 1.1%) rates. Independent predictors of SSO included body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2) (odds ratio [OR] 3.6; p < 0.001), 1 or more comorbidities (OR 2.5; p = 0.008), and defect width ≥15 cm (OR 1.8; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Complex abdominal wall reconstructions using ADM demonstrated similar rates of complications between the different CDC wound classifications. This is in contradistinction to published outcomes for abdominal wall reconstruction using synthetic mesh that show progressively higher complication rates with increasing degrees of contamination. These data support the use of ADM rather than synthetic mesh for complex abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of wound contamination.
Authors: Salvatore A Giordano; Patrick B Garvey; Donald P Baumann; Jun Liu; Charles E Butler Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Abbas M Hassan; Malke Asaad; Nikhil R Shah; Francesco M Egro; Jun Liu; Renata S Maricevich; Jesse C Selber; Matthew M Hanasono; Charles E Butler Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: N Baldan; G Munegato; A Di Leo; E Lauro; E Morpurgo; S Pianigiani; D Briscolini; R Ferrara; V Fiscon; A Brolese; G De Manzoni; G Baldazzi; D Snidero; S Merigliano; F Ricci; E Laterza; R Merenda; R Gianesini Journal: Hernia Date: 2019-01-19 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: J J Atema; E J Furnée; Y Maeda; J Warusavitarne; P J Tanis; W A Bemelman; C J Vaizey; M A Boermeester Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.352