Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 791–797 | Cite as

Indications and Outcomes of a Cross-Linked Porcine Dermal Collagen Mesh (Permacol) for Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A Multicenter Audit

  • Alexandre Doussot
  • Fawaz Abo-Alhassan
  • Sofiane Derbal
  • Isabelle Fournel
  • Faustin Kasereka-Kisenge
  • Tatiana Codjia
  • Haitham Khalil
  • Vincent Dubuisson
  • Haythem Najah
  • Alexis Laurent
  • Benoît Romain
  • Christophe Barrat
  • Christophe Trésallet
  • Muriel Mathonnet
  • Pablo Ortega-DeballonEmail author
Original Scientific Report
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

To reduce the occurrence of complications in the setting of high-risk patients with contaminated operative field, a wide range of biologic meshes has been developed. Yet, few series have reported outcomes after abdominal wall repair (AWR) using such meshes. Permacol is an acellular porcine dermal collagen matrix with a cross-linked pattern. This study reports short- and long-term outcomes after AWR for incisional hernia using Permacol.

Materials and methods

All consecutive patients undergoing single-stage open AWR using Permacol mesh at eight university hospitals were included. Mortality, complication and hernia recurrence rates were assessed. Independent risk factors for complications and hernia recurrence were identified with logistic regression and Fine and Gray analysis, respectively.

Results

Overall, 250 patients underwent single-stage AWR with Permacol. Nearly 80% had a VHWG grade 3 or 4 defect. In-hospital mortality and complication rates were 4.8% (n = 12) and 61.6% (n = 154), respectively. Reintervention for complications was required for 74 patients (29.6%). Mesh explantation rate was 4% (n = 10). Independent risk factors for complications were smoking, defect size and VHWG grade. After a mean follow-up time of 16.8 months (± 18.1 months), 63 (25.2%) experienced hernia recurrence. One-, 2- and 3-year RFS were 90%, 74% and 57%, respectively. Previous AWR, mesh location and the need for reintervention were independent predictors of hernia recurrence.

Discussion

Single-stage AWR is feasible using Permacol. Mortality and complication rates are high due to patients’ comorbidities and the degree of contamination of the operative field. Given the observed recurrence rate, the benefit of biologics remains to be ascertained.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Cyril Boisson (EPICAD INSERM UMR 1231, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France; LipSTIC LabEx, Fondation de Cooperation Scientifique Bourgogne Franche-Comte, Dijon) for his assistance with statistical analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

P. Ortega-Deballon has received grants from Covidien/Medtronic, Bard and LifeCell/Acelity. The other authors have no disclosures.

References

  1. 1.
    Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP et al (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343:392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burger JWA, Luijendijk RW, Hop WCJ et al (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holihan JL, Alawadi Z, Martindale RG et al (2015) Adverse events after ventral hernia repair: the vicious cycle of complications. J Am Coll Surg 221:478–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bueno-Lledó J, Torregrosa-Gallud A, Sala-Hernandez A et al (2017) Predictors of mesh infection and explantation after abdominal wall hernia repair. Am J Surg 213:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ventral Hernia Working Group, Breuing K, Butler CE et al (2010) Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery 148:544–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer JP, Basta MN, Mirzabeigi MN et al (2014) A comparison of outcomes and cost in VHWG grade II hernias between Rives-Stoppa synthetic mesh hernia repair versus underlay biologic mesh repair. Hernia 18:781–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sandvall BK, Suver DW, Said HK et al (2016) Comparison of synthetic and biologic mesh in ventral hernia repair using components separation technique. Ann Plast Surg 76:674–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Le D, Deveney CW, Reaven NL et al (2013) Mesh choice in ventral hernia repair: so many choices, so little time. Am J Surg 205:602–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xu H, Wan H, Sandor M et al (2008) Host response to human acellular dermal matrix transplantation in a primate model of abdominal wall repair. Tissue Eng Part A 14:2009–2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Connor J, McQuillan D, Sandor M et al (2009) Retention of structural and biochemical integrity in a biological mesh supports tissue remodeling in a primate abdominal wall model. Regen Med 4:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diaz JJ, Conquest AM, Ferzoco SJ et al (2009) Multi-institutional experience using human acellular dermal matrix for ventral hernia repair in a compromised surgical field. Arch Surg 144:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beale EW, Hoxworth RE, Livingston EH et al (2012) The role of biologic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction: a systematic review of the current literature. Am J Surg 204:510–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Itani KMF, Rosen M, Vargo D et al (2012) Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: The RICH Study. Surgery 152:498–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B et al (2013) A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg 257:991–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abdelfatah MM, Rostambeigi N, Podgaetz E et al (2015) Long-term outcomes (> 5-year follow-up) with porcine acellular dermal matrix (Permacol™) in incisional hernias at risk for infection. Hernia 19:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huntington CR, Cox TC, Blair LJ et al (2016) Biologic mesh in ventral hernia repair: outcomes, recurrence, and charge analysis. Surgery 160:1517–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boules M, Strong AT, Corcelles R et al (2017) Single-center ventral hernia repair with porcine dermis collagen implant. Surg Endosc 32(4):1820–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giordano P, Pullan RD, Ystgaard B et al (2015) The use of an acellular porcine dermal collagen implant in the repair of complex abdominal wall defects: a European multicentre retrospective study. Tech Coloproctology 19:411–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Collaborative Ventral Hernia Outcome, Mitchell TO, Holihan JL et al (2016) Do risk calculators accurately predict surgical site occurrences? J Surg Res 203:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosen MJ, Denoto G, Itani KMF et al (2013) Evaluation of surgical outcomes of retro-rectus versus intraperitoneal reinforcement with bio-prosthetic mesh in the repair of contaminated ventral hernias. Hernia 17:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giordano S, Garvey PB, Baumann DP et al (2017) Primary fascial closure with biologic mesh reinforcement results in lesser complication and recurrence rates than bridged biologic mesh repair for abdominal wall reconstruction: a propensity score analysis. Surgery 161:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Köckerling F, Alam NN, Antoniou SA et al (2018) What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction? Hernia 22:249–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandre Doussot
    • 1
  • Fawaz Abo-Alhassan
    • 1
  • Sofiane Derbal
    • 2
  • Isabelle Fournel
    • 3
  • Faustin Kasereka-Kisenge
    • 4
  • Tatiana Codjia
    • 5
  • Haitham Khalil
    • 5
  • Vincent Dubuisson
    • 6
  • Haythem Najah
    • 4
  • Alexis Laurent
    • 7
  • Benoît Romain
    • 8
  • Christophe Barrat
    • 9
  • Christophe Trésallet
    • 4
  • Muriel Mathonnet
    • 2
  • Pablo Ortega-Deballon
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Digestive SurgeryUniversity Hospital of DijonDijonFrance
  2. 2.Department of Digestive SurgeryUniversity Hospital of LimogesLimogesFrance
  3. 3.INSERM, CIC1432, Clinical Epidemiology UnitDijonFrance
  4. 4.Department of Digestive SurgeryPitié-Salpétrière HospitalParisFrance
  5. 5.Department of Digestive SurgeryUniversity Hospital of RouenRouenFrance
  6. 6.Department of Digestive SurgeryUniversity Hospital of BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  7. 7.Department of Digestive SurgeryHenri Mondor HospitalCréteilFrance
  8. 8.Department of Digestive SurgeryUniversity Hospital of StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  9. 9.Department of Digestive SurgeryJean Verdier HospitalBondyFrance

Personalised recommendations