C L Devin1, M A Olson2, L Tastaldi3, R Zheng1, A C Berger4, F Palazzo5. 1. Department of Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 1100 Walnut Street-Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA. 4. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, 1100 Walnut Street-Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. Francesco.Palazzo@jefferson.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several management strategies exist for the treatment of infected abdominal mesh. Using the American Hernia Society Quality Collaborative, we examined management patterns and 30-day outcomes of infected mesh removal with concomitant incisional hernia repair. METHODS: All patients undergoing incisional hernia repair with removal of infected mesh were identified. A complete repair (CR) was defined as fascial closure with mesh; a partial repair (PR) was defined as fascial closure without mesh or no fascial closure with mesh. A two-tailed p value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 282 patients were identified: 136 patients in CR group and 146 patients in PR group. Patients had similar comorbidities but differed in wound class (class IV: 55% CR vs 83% SR, p < 0.001) and incidence of associated concomitant colorectal procedures (5% CR vs 18% SR, p = 0.015). Sublay placement was used primarily in CR (94%) compared to PR (52% inlay, 48% sublay). When comparing CR to PR, length of stay (median 6, p = 0.69), complications (40% vs 44%, p = 0.44), surgical site infections (16% vs 21%, p = 0.27), surgical site occurrence (30% vs 35%, p = 0.45), and readmission within 30 days (9% vs. 13%) were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of data from a multicenter hernia registry comparing CR and PR during infected mesh removal and concurrent incisional hernia repair has not identified higher rates of short-term complications between groups in the presence of infection.
INTRODUCTION: Several management strategies exist for the treatment of infected abdominal mesh. Using the American Hernia Society Quality Collaborative, we examined management patterns and 30-day outcomes of infected mesh removal with concomitant incisional hernia repair. METHODS: All patients undergoing incisional hernia repair with removal of infected mesh were identified. A complete repair (CR) was defined as fascial closure with mesh; a partial repair (PR) was defined as fascial closure without mesh or no fascial closure with mesh. A two-tailed p value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 282 patients were identified: 136 patients in CR group and 146 patients in PR group. Patients had similar comorbidities but differed in wound class (class IV: 55% CR vs 83% SR, p < 0.001) and incidence of associated concomitant colorectal procedures (5% CR vs 18% SR, p = 0.015). Sublay placement was used primarily in CR (94%) compared to PR (52% inlay, 48% sublay). When comparing CR to PR, length of stay (median 6, p = 0.69), complications (40% vs 44%, p = 0.44), surgical site infections (16% vs 21%, p = 0.27), surgical site occurrence (30% vs 35%, p = 0.45), and readmission within 30 days (9% vs. 13%) were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of data from a multicenter hernia registry comparing CR and PR during infected mesh removal and concurrent incisional hernia repair has not identified higher rates of short-term complications between groups in the presence of infection.
Authors: I N Haskins; C M Horne; D M Krpata; A S Prabhu; L Tastaldi; Arielle J Perez; S Rosenblatt; B K Poulose; M J Rosen Journal: Hernia Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Karl Breuing; Charles E Butler; Stephen Ferzoco; Michael Franz; Charles S Hultman; Joshua F Kilbridge; Michael Rosen; Ronald P Silverman; Daniel Vargo Journal: Surgery Date: 2010-03-20 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Jacobus W A Burger; Roland W Luijendijk; Wim C J Hop; Jens A Halm; Emiel G G Verdaasdonk; Johannes Jeekel Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 12.969