Comparison of biological and alloplastic meshes in ventral incisional hernia repair
- 140 Downloads
The aim of our retrospective analysis was to compare the results of incisional hernia repair by porcine small intestinal submucosa-derived (SIS) meshes with those obtained by alloplastic polypropylene-based (PP) meshes in comparable surgical indications by matched-pair design. We hypothesized that in incisional hernia, SIS mesh repair is associated with fewer recurrences and SSO than PP mesh repair in incisional hernias.
Twenty-four matched pairs (SIS vs. PP mesh repair between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2013) were identified by matching criteria: gender, age, comorbidities, body mass index, EHS hernia classification, mesh implantation technique, CDC wound classification, and source of contamination/primary surgery leading to incisional hernia. Minimal follow-up time was 24 months. Means and standard deviations were compared by paired t test; categorial data were compared by McNemar’s test. Poisson’s distribution and negative binominal distribution were employed to detect significant correlation.
There were no statistically significant differences between both groups in the pre- and perioperative factors and the follow-up times. There were significantly more wound complications (19 vs. 12, p = 0.041), longer hospital stay (22.0 ± 6.3 vs. 12.0 ± 3.1 days, p = 0.010), and significantly more recurrent hernias (25 vs. 12.5%, p = 0.004) after SIS mesh repair. Both the Poisson’s distribution and the negative binominal distribution unveiled significantly more complication points (3–6 vs. 1–2) per month after SIS mesh repair.
There is no advantage of SIS meshes compared to PP meshes in incisional hernia repair with different degrees of wound contamination in this matched-pair analysis. Further prospective and randomized trials or at least registry studies such as the EHS register with standardized and defined conditions are warranted.
KeywordsVentral incisional hernia Biologic mesh Alloplastic mesh Cross-matched pair
Dr. Ralf Fimmers, deputy head of the institute of medical biometry, informatics, and epidemiology at the University of Bonn Medical School, deserves our acknowledgment for his highly appreciated assistance in the statistical analyses.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 4.Ramshaw BBS (2007) Surgical materials for ventral hernia repair: biological mesh part 2 of 3. General Surgery News 34(2):1–15Google Scholar
- 9.Stojiljkovic D, Kovacevic P, Visnjic M, Jankovic I, Stevanovic G, Stojiljkovic P, Stojiljkovic M, Trenkic M, Golubovic Z, Ignjatovic N, Dimitrijevic Z, Kovacevic T, Stosic B, Bagur N (2013) Comparative analysis of autodermal graft and polypropylene mesh use in large incisional hernia defects reconstruction. Vojnosanit Pregl 70(2):182–188. 10.2298/VSP1302182S CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Muysoms FE, Miserez M, Berrevoet F, Campanelli G, Champault GG, Chelala E, Dietz UA, Eker HH, El Nakadi I, Hauters P, Hidalgo Pascual M, Hoeferlin A, Klinge U, Montgomery A, Simmermacher RK, Simons MP, Smietanski M, Sommeling C, Tollens T, Vierendeels T, Kingsnorth A (2009) Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery 13(4):407–414. 10.1007/s10029-009-0518-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Ventral Hernia Working G, 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(3):544–558. 10.1016/j.surg.2010.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Schumpelick V, Arlt G, Klinge U (1997) Hernienchirurgie: Versorgung von Nabelhernie und Narbenhernie. Dtsch Arztebl International 94 (51-52):A-3471-3476Google Scholar
- 20.El-Gazzaz G, Erem HH, Aytac E, Salcedo L, Stocchi L, Kiran RP (2013) Risk of infection and hernia recurrence for patients undergoing ventral hernia repair with non-absorbable or biological mesh during open bowel procedures. Techniques in coloproctology 17(3):315–320. 10.1007/s10151-012-0928-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Coccolini F, Agresta F, Bassi A, Catena F, Crovella F, Ferrara R, Gossetti F, Marchi D, Munegato G, Negro P, Piccoli M, Melotti G, Sartelli M, Schiano di Visconte M, Testini M, Bertoli P, Capponi MG, Lotti M, Manfredi R, Pisano M, Poiasina E, Poletti E, Ansaloni L (2012) Italian Biological Prosthesis Work-Group (IBPWG): proposal for a decisional model in using biological prosthesis. World journal of emergency surgery : WJES 7(1):34. 10.1186/1749-7922-7-34 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 25.Franklin MEJ, Trevino JM, Portillo G, Vela I, Glass JL, Gonzalez JJ (2008) The use of porcine small intestinal submucosa as a prosthetic material for laparoscopic hernia repair in infected and potentially contaminated fields: long-term follow-up. Surg Endosc 22(9):1941–1946. 10.1007/s00464-008-0005-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Ditzel M, Deerenberg EB, Grotenhuis N, Harlaar JJ, Monkhorst K, Bastiaansen-Jenniskens YM, Jeekel J, Lange JF (2013) Biologic meshes are not superior to synthetic meshes in ventral hernia repair: an experimental study with long-term follow-up evaluation. Surg Endosc 27(10):3654–3662. 10.1007/s00464-013-2939-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Gruber-Blum S, Brand J, Keibl C, Fortelny RH, Redl H, Mayer F, Petter-Puchner AH (2016) Abdominal wall reinforcement: biologic vs. degradable synthetic devices. Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery. 10.1007/s10029-016-1556-9