Top

Published in:

01-02-2020 | Seroma | Original Article

Lessons learned from 227 biological meshes used for the surgical treatment of ventral abdominal defects

Authors: N. Baldan, G. Munegato, A. Di Leo, E. Lauro, E. Morpurgo, S. Pianigiani, D. Briscolini, R. Ferrara, V. Fiscon, A. Brolese, G. De Manzoni, G. Baldazzi, D. Snidero, S. Merigliano, F. Ricci, E. Laterza, R. Merenda, R. Gianesini, NEI-Meshing Collaborative

Published in: Hernia | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Purpose

The advantages of biological meshes for ventral hernia repair are still under debate. Given the high financial cost, the proper indications for biological meshes should be clarified to restrict their use to properly selected patients.

Methods

A retrospective database was instituted to register all cases of abdominal wall defect treated with biological meshes from 1/2010 to 3/2016.

Results

A total of 227 patients (mean age: 64 years) whose ventral abdominal defects were reconstructed with a biological mesh were included in the study. Patients were divided according to the 2010 four-level surgical-site complication risk grading system proposed by the Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG): Grade 1 (G1, 12 cases), Grade 2 (G2, 68 cases), Grade 3 (G3, 112 cases), and Grade 4 (G4, 35 cases). The surgical site complication rate was higher in patients with one or more risk factors (33.6% vs 19% in patients with no risk factors) (P = 0.68). Statistically significant risk factors associated with the onset of one or more postoperative surgical site complications included: diabetes, coronary artery disease, immunosuppression, and obesity. Recurrence was more common in patients with surgical site complications and mainly associated with infection (38.9%) and wound necrosis (44.4%), and in cases of inlay positioning of the mesh (36%).

Conclusions

Due to their high costs, biological mesh should not be used in G1 patients. In infected fields (G4), they should only be used if no other surgical solution is feasible. There is a clear need to prospectively evaluate the performance of biological meshes.

Hodgson NC, Malthaner RA, Ostbye T (2000) The search for an ideal method of abdominal fascial closure. A meta-analysis. Ann Surg 231:436–442CrossRef

Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583PubMedPubMedCentral

Milburn ML, Holton LH, Chung TL et al (2008) Acellular dermal matrix compared with synthetic implant material for repair of ventral hernia in the setting of peri-operative Staphylococcus aureus implant contamination: a rabbit model. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 9:433–442CrossRef

Ventral Hernia Working Group, Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S et al (2010) Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery 148:544–558CrossRef

Alaedeen DI, Lipman J, Medalie D, Rosen MJ (2007) The single-staged approach to the surgical management of abdominal wall hernias in contaminated fields. Hernia 11:41–45CrossRef

Köckerling F, Alam NN, Antoniou SA, Daniels IR et al (2018) What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction? Hernia 22:249–269CrossRef

Cederholm T, Barazzoni R, Austin P, Ballmer P et al (2017) ESPEN guidelines on definitions and terminology of clinical nutrition. Clin Nutr 36:49–64CrossRef

Muysoms F, Campanelli G, Champault GG, DEBeaux AC et al (2012) Eura HS: the development of an international online platform for registration and outcome measurement of ventral abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia 16:239–250CrossRef

Morales-Conde S (2012) A new classification for seroma after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. Hernia 16:261–267CrossRef

10.

Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, Campanelli G et al (2009) Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 13:407–414CrossRef

11.

Choi JJ, Palaniappa NC, Dallas KB, Rudich TB, Colon MJ, Divino CM (2012) Use of mesh during ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases: outcomes of 33,832 cases. Ann Surg 255:176–180CrossRef

12.

Harth KC, Blatnik JA, Anderson JM, Jacobs MR, Zeinali F, Rosen MJ (2013) Effect of surgical wound classification on biologic graft performance in complex hernia repair: an experimental study. Surgery 153:481–492CrossRef

13.

Hawn MT, Gray SH, Snyder CW, Graham LA, Finan KR, Vick CC (2011) Predictors of mesh explantation after incisional hernia repair. Am J Surg 202:28–33CrossRef

14.

Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B, Blatnik JA (2013) A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg 257:991–996CrossRef

15.

Itani KM, Rosen M, Vargo D, Awad SS, Denoto G 3rd, Butler CE, RICH Study Group (2012) Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: The RICH Study. Surgery 152:498–505CrossRef

16.

Majumder A, Winder JS, Wen Y, Pauli EM, Belyansky I, Novitsky YW (2016) Comparative analysis of biologic versus synthetic mesh outcomes in contaminated hernia repairs. Surgery 160:828–838CrossRef

17.

Satterwhite TS, Miri S, Chung C, Spain D, Lorenz HP, Lee GK (2012) Outcomes of complex abdominal herniorrhaphy. Experience with 106 cases. Ann Plast Surg 68:382–388CrossRef

18.

Atema JJ, de Vries FE, Boermeester MA (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the repair of potentially contaminated and contaminated abdominal wall defects. Am J Surg 212:982–995CrossRef

19.

Dunne JR, Malone DL, Tracy LK, Napolitano LM (2003) Abdominal wall hernias: risk factors for infection and resource utilization. J Surg Res 111:78–84CrossRef

20.

Carbonell AM, Criss CN, Cobb WS, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2013) Outcomes of synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 217:991–998CrossRef

21.

Garvey PB, Martinez RA, Baumann DP, Liu J, Butler CE (2014) Outcomes of abdominal wall reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix are not affected by wound contamination. J Am Coll Surg 219:853–864CrossRef

22.

Sailes FC, Walls J, Guelig D et al (2010) Synthetic and biological mesh in component separation: a 10-year single institution review. Ann Plast Surg 64:696–698PubMed

23.

Novitsky YW, Porter JR, Rucho ZC, Getz SB, Pratt BL, Kercher KW, Heniford BT (2006) Open preperitoneal retrofascial mesh repair for multiple recurrent ventral incisional hernias. J Am Coll Surg 203:283–289CrossRef

24.

Owei L, Swendiman RA, Kelz RR, Dempsey DT, Dumon KR (2017) Impact of body mass index on open ventral hernia repair: A retrospective review. Surgery 162:1320–1329CrossRef

25.

Helgstrand F (2016) National results after ventral hernia repair. Dan Med J 63:1–17

26.

Giordano P, Pullan RD, Ystgaard B, Gossetti F et al (2015) The use of an acellular porcine dermal collagen implant in the repair of complex abdominal wall defects: a European multicenter retrospective study. Tech Coloproctol 19:411–417CrossRef

27.

Mercoli H, Tzedakis S, D’Urso A et al (2017) Postoperative complications as an independent risk factor for recurrence after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: a prospective study of 417 patients with long-term follow-up. Surg Endosc 31:1469–1477CrossRef

28.

Patel KM, Nahabedian MY, Albino F, Bhanot P (2013) The use of porcine acellular dermal matrix in a bridge technique for complex abdominal wall reconstruction: an outcome analysis. Am J Surg 205:209–212CrossRef

29.

Negro P, D’Amore L, Ceci F, Gossetti F, Rostambeigi N, Podgaetz E, Sarr MG (2015) Comment to “Long-term outcomes (> 5 year follow-up) with porcine acellular dermal matrix (Permacol TM) in incisional hernias at risk for infection” by Abdelfatah MM. Hernia 19:1023–1024. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-013-1165-9)CrossRefPubMed

30.

Bellows CF, Smith A, Malsbury J, Helton WS (2013) Repair of incisional hernias with biological prosthesis: a systematic review of current evidence. Am J Surg 205:85–101CrossRef

Title: Lessons learned from 227 biological meshes used for the surgical treatment of ventral abdominal defects
Authors: N. Baldan
G. Munegato
A. Di Leo
E. Lauro
E. Morpurgo
S. Pianigiani
D. Briscolini
R. Ferrara
V. Fiscon
A. Brolese
G. De Manzoni
G. Baldazzi
D. Snidero
S. Merigliano
F. Ricci
E. Laterza
R. Merenda
R. Gianesini
NEI-Meshing Collaborative
Publication date: 01-02-2020
Publisher: Springer Paris
Keyword: Seroma
Published in: Hernia / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Electronic ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-01883-2

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Lessons learned from 227 biological meshes used for the surgical treatment of ventral abdominal defects

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Comment to: Mesh migration following abdominal hernia repair: a comprehensive review

Comment to: Laparoscopic versus hybrid approach for treatment of incisional ventral hernia: a prospective randomized multicenter study of 1-month follow-up results. Ahonen-Siirtola M, Nevala T, Vironen J et al

Recurrence after totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair: the role of physical examination and ultrasound

Inguinal hernia repair in centers of excellence

Safety and efficacy of prophylactic resorbable biosynthetic mesh following midline laparotomy in clean/contemned field: preliminary results of a randomized double blind prospective trial

Biofilms and effective porosity of hernia mesh: are they silent assassins?