Michael Katzen1, Sullivan A Ayuso1, Jana Sacco1, Dau Ku1, Gregory T Scarola1, Kent W Kercher1, Paul D Colavita1, Vedra A Augenstein1, B Todd Heniford2. 1. Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive Suite 300, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA. 2. Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive Suite 300, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA. todd.heniford@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) in a contaminated field is associated with an increased risk of wound complications, infection, and reoperation. The best method of repair and mesh choice in these operations have generated marked controversy. Our aim was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent AWR with biologic versus synthetic mesh in CDC class 3 and 4 wounds. METHODS: A prospective, single-institution database was queried for AWR using biologic or synthetic mesh in CDC Class 3 and 4 wounds. Hernia recurrence and complications were measured. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors predicting both. RESULTS: In total, 386 patients with contaminated wounds underwent AWR, 335 with biologic and 51 with synthetic mesh. Groups were similar in age, sex, BMI, and rate of diabetes. Biologic mesh patients had larger hernia defects (298 ± 233cm2 vs. 208 ± 155cm2; p = 0.004) and a higher rate of recurrent hernias (72.2% vs 47.1%; p < 0.001), comorbidities(5.8 ± 2.7 vs. 4.2 ± 2.4, p < 0.01), and a nearly fivefold increase in Class 4 wounds (47.8% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.001), while fascial closure trended to being less common (90.7% vs 96.1%; p = 0.078). Hernia recurrence was comparable between biologic and synthetic mesh (10.4% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.132). Wound complication rates were similar (36.1% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.699), but synthetic mesh had higher rates of mesh infection (1.2% vs 11.8%; p < 0.001) and infection-related resection (0% vs 7.8%, p < 0.001), with 66% of those synthetic mesh infections requiring excision. On logistic regression, wound complications (OR 5.96 [CI 1.60-22.17]; p = 0.008) and bridging mesh (OR 13.10 [CI 2.71-63.42];p = 0.030) predicted of hernia recurrence (p < 0.05), while synthetic mesh (OR 18.6 [CI 2.35-260.4] p = 0.012) and wound complications (OR 20.6 [CI 3.15-417.7] p = 0.008) predicted mesh infection. CONCLUSIONS: Wound complications in AWR with CDC class 3 and 4 wounds significantly increased mesh infection and hernia recurrence; failure to achieve fascial closure also increased hernia recurrence. Use of synthetic versus biologic mesh increased the mesh infection rate by 18.6 times.
INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) in a contaminated field is associated with an increased risk of wound complications, infection, and reoperation. The best method of repair and mesh choice in these operations have generated marked controversy. Our aim was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent AWR with biologic versus synthetic mesh in CDC class 3 and 4 wounds. METHODS: A prospective, single-institution database was queried for AWR using biologic or synthetic mesh in CDC Class 3 and 4 wounds. Hernia recurrence and complications were measured. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors predicting both. RESULTS: In total, 386 patients with contaminated wounds underwent AWR, 335 with biologic and 51 with synthetic mesh. Groups were similar in age, sex, BMI, and rate of diabetes. Biologic mesh patients had larger hernia defects (298 ± 233cm2 vs. 208 ± 155cm2; p = 0.004) and a higher rate of recurrent hernias (72.2% vs 47.1%; p < 0.001), comorbidities(5.8 ± 2.7 vs. 4.2 ± 2.4, p < 0.01), and a nearly fivefold increase in Class 4 wounds (47.8% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.001), while fascial closure trended to being less common (90.7% vs 96.1%; p = 0.078). Hernia recurrence was comparable between biologic and synthetic mesh (10.4% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.132). Wound complication rates were similar (36.1% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.699), but synthetic mesh had higher rates of mesh infection (1.2% vs 11.8%; p < 0.001) and infection-related resection (0% vs 7.8%, p < 0.001), with 66% of those synthetic mesh infections requiring excision. On logistic regression, wound complications (OR 5.96 [CI 1.60-22.17]; p = 0.008) and bridging mesh (OR 13.10 [CI 2.71-63.42];p = 0.030) predicted of hernia recurrence (p < 0.05), while synthetic mesh (OR 18.6 [CI 2.35-260.4] p = 0.012) and wound complications (OR 20.6 [CI 3.15-417.7] p = 0.008) predicted mesh infection. CONCLUSIONS: Wound complications in AWR with CDC class 3 and 4 wounds significantly increased mesh infection and hernia recurrence; failure to achieve fascial closure also increased hernia recurrence. Use of synthetic versus biologic mesh increased the mesh infection rate by 18.6 times.
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
Authors: Nathan W Kugler; Melanie Bobbs; Travis Webb; Thomas W Carver; David Milia; Jasmeet S Paul Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: B Todd Heniford; Samuel W Ross; Blair A Wormer; Amanda L Walters; Amy E Lincourt; Paul D Colavita; Kent W Kercher; Vedra A Augenstein Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michael J Rosen; Joel J Bauer; Marco Harmaty; Alfredo M Carbonell; William S Cobb; Brent Matthews; Matthew I Goldblatt; Don J Selzer; Benjamin K Poulose; Bibi M E Hansson; Camiel Rosman; James J Chao; Garth R Jacobsen Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 12.969
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
Authors: F E E de Vries; J D Hodgkinson; J J M Claessen; O van Ruler; C A Leo; Y Maeda; O Lapid; M C Obdeijn; P J Tanis; W A Bemelman; J Constantinides; G B Hanna; J Warusavitarne; C Vaizey; M A Boermeester Journal: Hernia Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Jenny M Shao; Sullivan A Ayuso; Eva B Deerenberg; Sharbel A Elhage; Tanu Prasad; Paul D Colavita; Vedra A Augenstein; B Todd Heniford Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: F Köckerling; N N Alam; S A Antoniou; I R Daniels; F Famiglietti; R H Fortelny; M M Heiss; F Kallinowski; I Kyle-Leinhase; F Mayer; M Miserez; A Montgomery; S Morales-Conde; F Muysoms; S K Narang; A Petter-Puchner; W Reinpold; H Scheuerlein; M Smietanski; B Stechemesser; C Strey; G Woeste; N J Smart Journal: Hernia Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 4.739