Ioana L Bondre1, Julie L Holihan2, Erik P Askenasy3, Jacob A Greenberg4, Jerrod N Keith5, Robert G Martindale6, J Scott Roth7, Mike K Liang1. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: Julie.L.Holihan@uth.tmc.edu. 3. Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 6. Department of Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. 7. Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data are lacking to support the choice between suture, synthetic mesh, or biologic matrix in contaminated ventral hernia repair (VHR). We hypothesize that in contaminated VHR, suture repair is associated with the lowest rate of surgical site infection (SSI). METHODS: A multicenter database of all open VHR performed at from 2010-2011 was reviewed. All patients with follow-up of 1 mo and longer were included. The primary outcome was SSI as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The secondary outcome was hernia recurrence (assessed clinically or radiographically). Multivariate analysis (stepwise regression for SSI and Cox proportional hazard model for recurrence) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 761 VHR were reviewed for a median (range) follow-up of 15 (1-50) mo: there were 291(38%) suture, 303 (40%) low-density and/or mid-density synthetic mesh, and 167(22%) biologic matrix repair. On univariate analysis, there were differences in the three groups including ethnicity, ASA, body mass index, institution, diabetes, primary versus incisional hernia, wound class, hernia size, prior VHR, fascial release, skin flaps, and acute repair. The unadjusted outcomes for SSI (15.1%; 17.8%; 21.0%; P = 0.280) and recurrence (17.8%; 13.5%; 21.5%; P = 0.074) were not statistically different between groups. On multivariate analysis, biologic matrix was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in both SSI and recurrences, whereas synthetic mesh associated with fewer recurrences compared to suture (hazard ratio = 0.60; P = 0.015) and nonsignificant increase in SSI. CONCLUSIONS: Interval estimates favored biologic matrix repair in contaminated VHR; however, these results were not statistically significant. In the absence of higher level evidence, surgeons should carefully balance risk, cost, and benefits in managing contaminated ventral hernia repair.
BACKGROUND: Data are lacking to support the choice between suture, synthetic mesh, or biologic matrix in contaminated ventral hernia repair (VHR). We hypothesize that in contaminated VHR, suture repair is associated with the lowest rate of surgical site infection (SSI). METHODS: A multicenter database of all open VHR performed at from 2010-2011 was reviewed. All patients with follow-up of 1 mo and longer were included. The primary outcome was SSI as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The secondary outcome was hernia recurrence (assessed clinically or radiographically). Multivariate analysis (stepwise regression for SSI and Cox proportional hazard model for recurrence) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 761 VHR were reviewed for a median (range) follow-up of 15 (1-50) mo: there were 291(38%) suture, 303 (40%) low-density and/or mid-density synthetic mesh, and 167(22%) biologic matrix repair. On univariate analysis, there were differences in the three groups including ethnicity, ASA, body mass index, institution, diabetes, primary versus incisional hernia, wound class, hernia size, prior VHR, fascial release, skin flaps, and acute repair. The unadjusted outcomes for SSI (15.1%; 17.8%; 21.0%; P = 0.280) and recurrence (17.8%; 13.5%; 21.5%; P = 0.074) were not statistically different between groups. On multivariate analysis, biologic matrix was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in both SSI and recurrences, whereas synthetic mesh associated with fewer recurrences compared to suture (hazard ratio = 0.60; P = 0.015) and nonsignificant increase in SSI. CONCLUSIONS: Interval estimates favored biologic matrix repair in contaminated VHR; however, these results were not statistically significant. In the absence of higher level evidence, surgeons should carefully balance risk, cost, and benefits in managing contaminated ventral hernia repair.
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: Julio C Sánchez; Diana M Díaz; Leidy V Sánchez; Aníbal Valencia-Vásquez; Juan F Quintero; Laura V Muñoz; Andrés F Bernal; Germán Osorio; Álvaro Guerra; Juliana Buitrago Journal: Tissue Eng Regen Med Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 4.169
Authors: Job C Tharappel; Jennifer W Harris; Crystal Totten; Brittany A Zwischenberger; John S Roth Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 4.584