Comparison of Synthetic and Biologic Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair Using Components Separation Technique
Authors:
- Daniel W. SuverDSDaniel W. Suver
- Hakim K. SaidHSHakim K. Said
- David W. MathesDMDavid W. Mathes
- Peter C. NeliganPNPeter C. Neligan
- E. Patchen DellingerEDE. Patchen Dellinger
- Otway LouieOLOtway Louie
- 1 June 2016
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Annals of Plastic Surgery
- Vol. 76 (6) , 674-679
Abstract
Ventral hernia repair (VHR) for large abdominal wall defects is challenging. Prior research established that the use of mesh is superior to suture closure alone and that component separation is an effective technique to combat loss of abdominal domain. Studies comparing component separation technique (CST) outcomes utilizing synthetic versus biologic mesh are limited. A retrospective review was conducted of 72 consecutive patients who underwent VHR with CST between 2006 and 2010 at our institution. Surgeon preference and the presence of contamination guided whether synthetic mesh (27 patients) or biologic mesh (45 patients) was used. Mean follow-up interval for all comers was 13.9 months and similar in both groups (P > 0.05). Degree of contamination and severity of premorbid medical conditions were significantly higher in the biologic mesh group, as reflected in the higher Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) score (2.04 versus 2.86). Clinical outcomes, as measured by both minor and major complication rates and recurrence rates, were not significantly different. Minor complication rates were 26% in the synthetic group and 37% in the biologic group and major complication rates 15% in the synthetic group and 22% in the biologic group. There was 1 recurrence (4%) in the synthetic mesh group versus 5 (11%) in the biologic mesh group. Multivariable analysis for major complications revealed no significant difference for either synthetic or biologic mesh while controlling for other variables. Subset analysis of uncontaminated cases revealed recurrence rates of 4% in the synthetic mesh group and 6% in the biologic mesh group. VHR using CST and either synthetic mesh or biologic mesh resulted in low recurrence rates with similar overall complication profiles, despite the higher average VHWG grading score in the biologic mesh group. Our results support the VHWG recommendation for biologic mesh utilization in higher VHWG grade patients. In VHWG grade 2 patients, our clinical outcomes were similar, supporting the use of either type of mesh.Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cost and Clinical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair Using Intraperitoneal Nonheavyweight Polypropylene MeshSurgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, 2011
- A Review of Available Prosthetics for Ventral Hernia RepairAnnals of Surgery, 2011
- Not all biologics are equal!Hernia, 2010
- On the Origins of Components SeparationPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2009
- Soft Polypropylene Mesh, But Not Cadaveric Dermis, Significantly Improves Outcomes in Midline Hernia Repairs Using the Components Separation TechniquePlastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2009
- Outcome of Reconstructive Surgery for Intestinal Fistula in the Open AbdomenAnnals of Surgery, 2008
- Recurrent Abdominal Laxity Following Interpositional Human Acellular Dermal MatrixAnnals of Plastic Surgery, 2008
- Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Suture Versus Mesh Repair of Incisional HerniaAnnals of Surgery, 2004
- “Components Separation Technique” for the Repair of Large Abdominal Wall HerniasJournal of the American College of Surgeons, 2003
- Intraperitoneal polypropylene mesh repair of incisional hernia is not associated with enterocutaneous fistulaBritish Journal of Surgery, 2000