Arnab Majumder1, Joshua S Winder2, Yuxiang Wen1, Eric M Pauli2, Igor Belyansky3, Yuri W Novitsky4. 1. Case Comprehensive Hernia Center, Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. 2. Division of Minimally Invasive and Bariatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Penn State University Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA. 3. Department of General Surgery, Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, MD. 4. Case Comprehensive Hernia Center, Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: yuri.novitsky@uhhospitals.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contaminated operative fields pose significant challenges for surgeons performing ventral hernia repair. Although biologic meshes have been utilized increasingly in these fields, recent evidence suggests that synthetic meshes represent a viable option. We analyzed the outcomes of biologic and synthetic mesh utilized in patients undergoing major ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated/contaminated fields. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective review of patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated/contaminated fields using biologic or synthetic mesh. Patient and hernia details were characterized. Primary outcomes included 90-day surgical site event, surgical site infection, and hernia recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients undergoing major ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated/contaminated fields (69 biologic and 57 synthetic meshes) were analyzed. Groups were similar in both patient and hernia characteristics. There were 13 (22.8%) surgical site events in the synthetic cohort compared to 29 (42.0%) in the biologic cohort, P = .024. Similarly, surgical site infections were less frequent in the synthetic group, with 7 (12.3%) vs 22 (31.9%), P = .01. With a mean follow-up of 20 months, there were more recurrences in the biologic group: 15 (26.3%) vs 4 (8.9%) in the synthetic group, P = .039. CONCLUSION: The choice of mesh for clean-contaminated/contaminated ventral hernia repair remains debatable. We demonstrated that using synthetic sublay mesh resulted in a significantly lower wound morbidity and more durable outcomes versus a similar cohort of biologic repairs. This is likely secondary to improved bacterial clearance and faster integration of macroporous synthetics. Overall, our findings not only support suitability of synthetic mesh in contaminated settings but also challenge the purported advantage of biologics in clean-contaminated/contaminated ventral hernia repairs.
BACKGROUND: Contaminated operative fields pose significant challenges for surgeons performing ventral hernia repair. Although biologic meshes have been utilized increasingly in these fields, recent evidence suggests that synthetic meshes represent a viable option. We analyzed the outcomes of biologic and synthetic mesh utilized in patients undergoing major ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated/contaminated fields. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective review of patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated/contaminated fields using biologic or synthetic mesh. Patient and hernia details were characterized. Primary outcomes included 90-day surgical site event, surgical site infection, and hernia recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients undergoing major ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated/contaminated fields (69 biologic and 57 synthetic meshes) were analyzed. Groups were similar in both patient and hernia characteristics. There were 13 (22.8%) surgical site events in the synthetic cohort compared to 29 (42.0%) in the biologic cohort, P = .024. Similarly, surgical site infections were less frequent in the synthetic group, with 7 (12.3%) vs 22 (31.9%), P = .01. With a mean follow-up of 20 months, there were more recurrences in the biologic group: 15 (26.3%) vs 4 (8.9%) in the synthetic group, P = .039. CONCLUSION: The choice of mesh for clean-contaminated/contaminated ventral hernia repair remains debatable. We demonstrated that using synthetic sublay mesh resulted in a significantly lower wound morbidity and more durable outcomes versus a similar cohort of biologic repairs. This is likely secondary to improved bacterial clearance and faster integration of macroporous synthetics. Overall, our findings not only support suitability of synthetic mesh in contaminated settings but also challenge the purported advantage of biologics in clean-contaminated/contaminated ventral hernia repairs.
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: 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: James G Bittner; Kevin El-Hayek; Andrew T Strong; Melissa Phillips LaPinska; Jin S Yoo; Eric M Pauli; Matthew Kroh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 4.584