Kandice Keogh1,2, Kellee Slater1. 1. Department of Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2. School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abdominal hernias are an increasingly common presentation due to obesity, ageing and prevalence of prior abdominal surgery. Mesh repair is the mainstay of treatment; however, mesh selection remains largely subjective. There are little data available to assess the performance of biosynthetic meshes against synthetic meshes across all wound types. This study assessed the 6-month outcomes of a single surgeon's cohort of ventral hernia repairs performed with either GORE BIO-A (BioA) or Parietex ProGrip (ProGrip). METHODS: Retrospective case cohort study across two centres with patients undergoing repair by a single surgeon (KS) between January 2014 and April 2018 was conducted. All hernia repairs were performed with either BioA (n = 55) or ProGrip mesh (n = 60). Outcomes were monitored for 6 months post repair. Wounds were classified according to the Centre for Disease Control Wound Status. Outcomes measured were length of stay, general complications, wound complications and hernia recurrence. RESULTS: The overall complication rate and length of stay were similar for both groups. In clean wounds, the complication rate was equivalent for BioA and ProGrip (34% versus 22%, P = 0.22). There was a significant difference in complication rates in contaminated wounds - BioA 17% versus ProGrip 100% (P = 0.004). BioA performed equivocally in clean and contaminated wounds (34% versus 17%, P = 0.178), whereas ProGrip performed worse in contaminated wounds (22% versus 100%, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that BioA is a suitable, if not preferable, choice for contaminated hernia repair. In this cohort, BioA was also demonstrated as safe and equivalent to ProGrip mesh in clean hernia wounds.
BACKGROUND:Abdominal hernias are an increasingly common presentation due to obesity, ageing and prevalence of prior abdominal surgery. Mesh repair is the mainstay of treatment; however, mesh selection remains largely subjective. There are little data available to assess the performance of biosynthetic meshes against synthetic meshes across all wound types. This study assessed the 6-month outcomes of a single surgeon's cohort of ventral hernia repairs performed with either GORE BIO-A (BioA) or Parietex ProGrip (ProGrip). METHODS: Retrospective case cohort study across two centres with patients undergoing repair by a single surgeon (KS) between January 2014 and April 2018 was conducted. All hernia repairs were performed with either BioA (n = 55) or ProGrip mesh (n = 60). Outcomes were monitored for 6 months post repair. Wounds were classified according to the Centre for Disease Control Wound Status. Outcomes measured were length of stay, general complications, wound complications and hernia recurrence. RESULTS: The overall complication rate and length of stay were similar for both groups. In clean wounds, the complication rate was equivalent for BioA and ProGrip (34% versus 22%, P = 0.22). There was a significant difference in complication rates in contaminated wounds - BioA 17% versus ProGrip 100% (P = 0.004). BioA performed equivocally in clean and contaminated wounds (34% versus 17%, P = 0.178), whereas ProGrip performed worse in contaminated wounds (22% versus 100%, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that BioA is a suitable, if not preferable, choice for contaminated hernia repair. In this cohort, BioA was also demonstrated as safe and equivalent to ProGrip mesh in clean hernia wounds.
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: Salvador Morales-Conde; Frederick Berrevoet; Lars Nannestad Jorgensen; Domenico Marchi; Pablo Ortega-Deballon; Alistair Windsor Journal: World J Surg Date: 2022-10-02 Impact factor: 3.282