Slowly absorbable mesh in sublay ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields.


Journal

Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2023
Historique:
received: 27 02 2023
accepted: 30 07 2023
medline: 27 9 2023
pubmed: 6 9 2023
entrez: 5 9 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In the past years, there has been increasing evidence that supports the use of permanent mesh in contaminated wounds. Given this increased evidence, the indications to opt for slowly absorbable "biosynthetic" prostheses have been questioned. To address this, we compared the outcomes of slowly absorbable mesh in contaminated cases in a well-matched multicentric cohort. The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) database was queried for patients undergoing elective ventral hernia repair in Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-III operations (2013-2022). We compared demographics, hernia characteristics, and postoperative outcomes among types of mesh. We used propensity score matching to adjust for sex, diabetes, body mass index, smoking status, and operative time between mesh groups. Patients within other CDC classes and those with mesh positioned elsewhere than retro-rectus/preperitoneal space were excluded. A total of 760 patients were included in the analysis. Slowly absorbable synthetic mesh (SA) was utilized in only 7% of the cases, while permanent (P) and biologic (B) mesh in 77% and 16%, respectively. After matching, 255 patients were studied. There was no difference in surgical site occurrence (8% SA, 16% P, 10% B, p = 0.27), surgical site infection (20% SA, 17% P, 12% B p = 0.54), surgical site occurrence requiring intervention (18% SA, 13% P, 14% B p = 0.72), readmission (12% SA, 14% P, 12% B, p = 0.90), or reoperation (8% SA, 2% P, 4% B, p = 0.14) at 30 days. In patients with 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in recurrence among groups (20% SA, 26% P, 24% B p = 0.90). Based on our findings, SA has comparable outcomes to other types of mesh, particularly when an optimal retro-rectus repair is performed.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
In the past years, there has been increasing evidence that supports the use of permanent mesh in contaminated wounds. Given this increased evidence, the indications to opt for slowly absorbable "biosynthetic" prostheses have been questioned. To address this, we compared the outcomes of slowly absorbable mesh in contaminated cases in a well-matched multicentric cohort.
METHODS
The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC) database was queried for patients undergoing elective ventral hernia repair in Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-III operations (2013-2022). We compared demographics, hernia characteristics, and postoperative outcomes among types of mesh. We used propensity score matching to adjust for sex, diabetes, body mass index, smoking status, and operative time between mesh groups. Patients within other CDC classes and those with mesh positioned elsewhere than retro-rectus/preperitoneal space were excluded.
RESULTS
A total of 760 patients were included in the analysis. Slowly absorbable synthetic mesh (SA) was utilized in only 7% of the cases, while permanent (P) and biologic (B) mesh in 77% and 16%, respectively. After matching, 255 patients were studied. There was no difference in surgical site occurrence (8% SA, 16% P, 10% B, p = 0.27), surgical site infection (20% SA, 17% P, 12% B p = 0.54), surgical site occurrence requiring intervention (18% SA, 13% P, 14% B p = 0.72), readmission (12% SA, 14% P, 12% B, p = 0.90), or reoperation (8% SA, 2% P, 4% B, p = 0.14) at 30 days. In patients with 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in recurrence among groups (20% SA, 26% P, 24% B p = 0.90).
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings, SA has comparable outcomes to other types of mesh, particularly when an optimal retro-rectus repair is performed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37670192
doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10362-w
pii: 10.1007/s00464-023-10362-w
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

8080-8090

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Références

Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Petro CC, Carbonell A, Warren J, Poulose BK, Costanzo A, Tu C, Blatnik J, Prabhu AS (2022) Biologic vs synthetic mesh for single-stage repair of contaminated ventral hernias: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 157:293. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.6902
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.6902 pubmed: 35044431 pmcid: 8771431
Harris HW, Primus F, Young C, Carter JT, Lin M, Mukhtar RA, Yeh B, Allen IE, Freise C, Kim E, Sbitany H, Young DM, Hansen S (2021) Preventing recurrence in clean and contaminated hernias using biologic versus synthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair: the price randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 273:648–655. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004336
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004336 pubmed: 33443907
Montgomery A (2013) The battle between biological and synthetic meshes in ventral hernia repair. Hernia 17:3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-013-1043-5
doi: 10.1007/s10029-013-1043-5 pubmed: 23314566
Kushner B, Holden T, Politi M, Blatnik J, Holden S (2021) A practical guideline for the implementation of shared decision-making in complex ventral incisional hernia repair. J Surg Res 259:387–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.09.019
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.09.019 pubmed: 33070993
Lee T-HJ, Ulisney KL, Choudhuri AK, Swiger JL, Gibeily GJ (2019) Understanding the patient perspective after ventral hernia repair. Hernia 23:995–1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02015-6
doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-02015-6 pubmed: 31385071
Cardin JL, Johanet H (2019) Malpractice claims and abdominal wall hernia repair. J Visc Surg 156:S57–S60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2019.03.005
doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2019.03.005 pubmed: 31104901
Elhage SA, Thielen ON, Otero J, Huber AT, Grigg TM, Suddreth CE, Monjimbo GA, Prasad T, Augenstein VA, Heniford BT (2021) Perceptions and understanding about mesh and hernia surgery: what do patients really think? Surgery 169:1400–1406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.001
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.001 pubmed: 33461777
Tippett E, King J, Lucent V, Ephraim S, Murphy M, Taff E (2018) Does attorney advertising influence patient perceptions of pelvic mesh? Urology 111:65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.08.050
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.08.050 pubmed: 29031838
Van Rooijen MMJ, Tollens T, Jørgensen LN, de Vries Reilingh TS, Piessen G, Köckerling F, Miserez M, Windsor ACJ, Berrevoet F, Fortelny RH, Dousset B, Woeste G, van Westreenen HL, Gossetti F, Lange JF, Tetteroo GWM, Koch A, Jeekel J (2022) Slowly resorbable biosynthetic mesh: 2-year results in VHWG grade 3 hernia repair. Hernia 26:131–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-021-02453-1
doi: 10.1007/s10029-021-02453-1 pubmed: 34282506
Miserez M, Jairam AP, Boersema GSA, Bayon Y, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2019) Resorbable synthetic meshes for abdominal wall defects in preclinical setting: a literature review. J Surg Res 237:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.11.054
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.11.054 pubmed: 30710881
Roth JS, Anthone GJ, Selzer DJ, Poulose BK, Pierce RA, Bittner JG, Hope WW, Dunn RM, Martindale RG, Goldblatt MI, Earle DB, Romanelli JR, Mancini GJ, Greenberg JA, Linn JG, Parra-Davila E, Sandler BJ, Deeken CR, Verbarg J, Salluzzo JL, Voeller GR (2021) Prospective, multicenter study of P4HB (Phasix™) mesh for hernia repair in cohort at risk for complications: 3-year follow-up. Ann Med Surg 61:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.12.002
doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.12.002
Buell JF, Flaris AN, Raju S, Hauch A, Darden M, Parker GG (2021) Long-term outcomes in complex abdominal wall reconstruction repaired with absorbable biologic polymer scaffold (Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate). Ann Surg Open 2:e032. https://doi.org/10.1097/AS9.0000000000000032
doi: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000032 pubmed: 37638247 pmcid: 10455061
Poulose BK, Roll S, Murphy JW, Matthews BD, Todd Heniford B, Voeller G, Hope WW, Goldblatt MI, Adrales GL, Rosen MJ (2016) Design and implementation of the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC): improving value in hernia care. Hernia 20:177–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1477-7
doi: 10.1007/s10029-016-1477-7 pubmed: 26936373
Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, Franz M, Hultman CS, Kilbridge JF, Rosen M, Silverman RP, Vargo D (2010) Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery 148:544–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2010.01.008
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2010.01.008 pubmed: 20304452
Sanchez VM, Abi-Haidar YE, Itani KMF (2011) Mesh infection in ventral incisional hernia repair: incidence, contributing factors, and treatment. Surg Infect 12:205–210. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2011.033
doi: 10.1089/sur.2011.033
Earle DB, Mark LA (2008) prosthetic material in inguinal hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Clin North Am 88:179–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2007.11.002
doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2007.11.002 pubmed: 18267169
Albino FP, Patel KM, Nahabedian MY, Sosin M, Attinger CE, Bhanot P (2013) Does mesh location matter in abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review of the literature and a summary recommendations. Plast Reconst Surg 132:1295–1304. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a4c393
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a4c393 pubmed: 24165612
Nguyen MT, Li LT, Hicks SC, Davila JA, Suliburk JW, Leong M, Kao LS, Berger DH, Liang MK (2013) Readmission following open ventral hernia repair: incidence, indications, and predictors. Am J Surg 206:942–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.08.022
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.08.022 pubmed: 24296099
Austin PC (2011) Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Statist 10:150–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.433
doi: 10.1002/pst.433
Rodriguez-Quintero JH, Romero-Velez G, Lima DL, Huang L-C, Sreeramoju P, Malcher F (2022) Permanent vs absorbable mesh for ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields: a multicenter propensity matched analysis of one-year outcomes using the abdominal core health quality collaborative database. J Am College Surgeons (Publish ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1097/XCS.0000000000000433
doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000433
Morales-Conde S, Hernández-Granados P, Tallón-Aguilar L, Verdaguer-Tremolosa M, López-Cano M (2022) Ventral hernia repair in high-risk patients and contaminated fields using a single mesh: proportional meta-analysis. Hernia 26:1459–1471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02668-w
doi: 10.1007/s10029-022-02668-w pubmed: 36098869 pmcid: 9684228
Bondre IL, Holihan JL, Askenasy EP, Greenberg JA, Keith JN, Martindale RG, Roth JS, Liang MK (2016) Suture, synthetic, or biologic in contaminated ventral hernia repair. J Surg Res 200:488–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.09.007
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.09.007 pubmed: 26424112
Passot G, Margier J, Kefleyesus A, Rousset P, Ortega-Deballon P, Renard Y, Bin S, Villeneuve L (2022) Slowly absorbable mesh versus standard care in the management of contaminated midline incisional hernia (COMpACT-BIO): a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial including a health economic evaluation. BMJ Open 12:e061184. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061184
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061184 pubmed: 36008058 pmcid: 9422840
Stolarski AE, Itani KMF (2022) Nailing the coffin on biological mesh in contaminated ventral hernias. JAMA Surg 157:302. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.6903
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.6903 pubmed: 35044420
Seker D, Kulacoglu H (2011) Long-term complications of mesh repairs for abdominal-wall hernias. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 21:205–218. https://doi.org/10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.v21.i3.40
doi: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.v21.i3.40 pubmed: 22150353
Layer T, Benammi S, Dubuisson V, Manfredelli S, Passot G, Charleux-Muller D, Renard Y, Ortega-Deballon P, Romain B (2022) Incisional hernia repair with a slowly absorbable P4HB mesh: what happens after the mesh disappears? A retrospective longitudinal clinical study. Hernia. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02616-8
doi: 10.1007/s10029-022-02616-8 pubmed: 35536373
Mellia JA, Othman S, Naga HI, Messa CA, Elfanagely O, Byrnes YM, Basta MN, Fischer JP (2020) Outcomes of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh in ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Plast Reconst Surg Glob Open 8:e3158. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003158
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003158
Hope WW, El-Ghazzawy AG, Winterstein BA, Blatnik JA, Davis SS, Greenberg JA, Sanchez NC, Pauli EM, Tseng DM, LeBlanc KA, Roberts KE, Bower CE, Parra-Davila E, Roth JS, Deeken CR, Smith EF (2022) A prospective, multicenter trial of a long-term bioabsorbable mesh with Sepra technology in cohort of challenging laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repairs (ATLAS trial). Ann Med Surg 73:103156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103156
doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103156
Aldohayan A, Alamri H, Aljunidel R, Alotaibi A, Alosaimi M, Alburakan A, Bamehriz F (2021) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair with poly-4-hydroxybutyrate absorbable barrier composite mesh. JSLS 25:e2020.00105. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2020.00105
doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2020.00105 pubmed: 33879989 pmcid: 8035817
Charleux-Muller D, Hurel R, Fabacher T, Brigand C, Rohr S, Manfredelli S, Passot G, Ortega-Deballon P, Dubuisson V, Renard Y, Romain B (2021) Slowly absorbable mesh in contaminated incisional hernia repair: results of a French multicenter study. Hernia 25:1051–1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02366-5
doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02366-5 pubmed: 33492554
van Rooijen MMJ, Jairam AP, Tollens T, Jørgensen LN, de Vries Reilingh TS, Piessen G, Köckerling F, Miserez M, Windsor ACJ, Berrevoet F, Fortelny RH, Dousset B, Woeste G, van Westreenen HL, Gossetti F, Lange JF, Tetteroo GWM, Koch A, Kroese LF, Jeekel J (2020) Outcomes of a new slowly resorbable biosynthetic mesh (Phasix™) in potentially contaminated incisional hernias: a prospective, multi-center, single-arm trial. Int J Surg 83:31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.08.053
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.08.053 pubmed: 32931978
Köckerling F, Alam NN, Antoniou SA, Daniels IR, Famiglietti F, Fortelny RH, Heiss MM, Kallinowski F, Kyle-Leinhase I, Mayer F, Miserez M, Montgomery A, Morales-Conde S, Muysoms F, Narang SK, Petter-Puchner A, Reinpold W, Scheuerlein H, Smietanski M, Stechemesser B, Strey C, Woeste G, Smart NJ (2018) What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction? Hernia 22:249–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-018-1735-y
doi: 10.1007/s10029-018-1735-y pubmed: 29388080 pmcid: 5978919
Walters AL, Dacey KT, Zemlyak AY, Lincourt AE, Heniford BT (2013) Medical malpractice and hernia repair: an analysis of case law. J Surg Res 180:196–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.04.028
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.04.028 pubmed: 22578855
Nijs J, Miserez M, Meylemans D, Tollens T (2022) Patient satisfaction after inguinal hernia surgery: literature review of an overlooked patient-reported outcome measure. Surg Technol Int. https://doi.org/10.52198/22.STI.41.HR1626
doi: 10.52198/22.STI.41.HR1626 pubmed: 36326045
Kelly S (2017) Mesh abdominal wall hernia surgery is safe and effective-the harm New Zealand media has done. New Zealand Med J 130:54–57
pubmed: 28981495
AlMarzooqi R, Petro C, Tish S, Fafaj A, Alkhatib H, Tastaldi L, Tu C, Prabhu A, Krpata D, Rosen M (2020) Patient perceptions on mesh use in hernia repair: a prospective, questionnaire-based study. Surgery 167:751–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2019.12.005
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2019.12.005 pubmed: 32061401
Vauclair E, Bert M, Facy O, Cheynel N, Rat P, Ortega-Deballon P (2021) What results can be expected one year after complex incisional hernia repair with biosynthetic mesh? J Visc Surg 158:111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2020.07.008
doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2020.07.008 pubmed: 33454303
Messa CA, Kozak G, Broach RB, Fischer JP (2019) When the mesh goes away: an analysis of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh for complex hernia repair. Plast Reconst Surg Glob Open 7:e2576. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002576
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002576
Christopher AN, Morris MP, Patel V, Mellia JA, Fowler C, Messa CA, Broach RB, Fischer JP (2021) An evaluation of clinical and quality of life outcomes after ventral hernia repair with poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh. Hernia 25:717–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-021-02394-9
doi: 10.1007/s10029-021-02394-9 pubmed: 33907919
Talwar AA, Perry NJ, McAuliffe PB, Desai AA, Thrippleton S, Broach RB, Fischer JP (2022) Shifting the goalpost in ventral hernia care: 5-year outcomes after ventral hernia repair with poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh. Hernia 26:1635–1643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02674-y
doi: 10.1007/s10029-022-02674-y pubmed: 36114396
Schneeberger S, Phillips S, Huang L-C, Pierce RA, Etemad SA, Poulose BK (2019) Cost-utility analysis of biologic and biosynthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair: when are they worth it? J Am Coll Surg 228:66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.10.009
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.10.009 pubmed: 30359837
Charleux-Muller D, Romain B, Boisson C, Velten M, Brigand C, Lejeune C (2022) Cost-effectiveness analysis of resorbable biosynthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repair. J Visc Surg 159:279–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2021.06.001
doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2021.06.001 pubmed: 34116953
Rognoni C, Bassi UA, Cataldo M, Crovella C, Crovella F, Cuccurullo D, Cudemo M, De Nicola E, De Paolis P, Greco VM, Marioni A, Pessione S, Piccoli M, Rosignoli A, Sagnelli C, Silvestro R, Tarricone R, Trapani V, Soliani G (2018) Budget impact analysis of a biosynthetic mesh for incisional hernia repair. Clin Ther 40:1830–1844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.09.003
doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.09.003 pubmed: 30348513
Buell JF, Sigmon D, Ducoin C, Shapiro M, Teja N, Wynter E, Hanisee MK, Parker G, Kandil E, Darden M (2017) Initial experience with biologic polymer scaffold (poly-4-hydroxybuturate) in complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Ann Surg 266:185–188. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001916
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001916 pubmed: 28594679

Auteurs

Jorge Humberto Rodriguez-Quintero (JH)

Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.

Gustavo Romero-Velez (G)

Department of Endocrine Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Camilo Mandujano (C)

Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.

Li-Ching Huang (LC)

Center of Quantitative Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.

Prashanth Sreeramoju (P)

Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA.

Flavio Malcher (F)

Department of Surgery, New York University, 530 1st Ave, New York, NY, USA. Flavio.Malcher@nyulangone.org.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH