Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 1123–1130 | Cite as

First human use of hybrid synthetic/biologic mesh in ventral hernia repair: a multicenter trial

  • James G. BittnerIV
  • Kevin El-Hayek
  • Andrew T. Strong
  • Melissa Phillips LaPinska
  • Jin S. Yoo
  • Eric M. Pauli
  • Matthew Kroh
Article

Abstract

Background

Mesh options for reinforcement of ventral/incisional hernia (VIH) repair include synthetic or biologic materials. While each material has known advantages and disadvantages, little is understood about outcomes when these materials are used in combination. This multicenter study reports on the first human use of a novel synthetic/biologic hybrid mesh (Zenapro® Hybrid Hernia Repair Device) for VIH repair.

Methods

This prospective, multicenter post-market clinical trial enrolled consecutive adults who underwent elective VIH repair with hybrid mesh placed in the intraperitoneal or retromuscular/preperitoneal position. Patients were classified as Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) grades 1–3 and had clean or clean-contaminated wounds. Outcomes of ventral and incisional hernia were compared using appropriate parametric tests.

Results

In all, 63 patients underwent VIH repair with hybrid mesh. Most were females (54.0%), had a mean age of 54.8 ± 10.9 years and mean body mass index of 34.5 ± 7.8 kg/m2, and classified as VHWG grade 2 (87.3%). Most defects were midline (92.1%) with a mean area of 106 ± 155 cm2. Cases were commonly classified as clean (92.1%) and were performed laparoscopically (60.3%). Primary fascial closure was achieved in 82.5% with 28.2% requiring component separation. Mesh location was frequently intraperitoneal (69.8%). Overall, 39% of patients available for follow-up at 12 months suffered surgical site events, which were generally more frequent after incisional hernia repair. Of these, seroma (23.7%) was most common, but few (8.5%) required procedural intervention. Other surgical site events that required procedural intervention included hematoma (1.7%), wound dehiscence (1.7%), and surgical site infection (3.4%). Recurrence rate was 6.8% (95% CI 2.2–16.6%) at 12-months postoperatively.

Conclusion

Zenapro® Hybrid Hernia Repair Device is safe and effective in VHWG grade 1–2 patients with clean wounds out to 12 months. Short-term outcomes and recurrence rate are acceptable. This hybrid mesh represents a novel option for reinforcement during VIH repair.

Keywords

Ventral/incisional hernia repair Biologic graft Synthetic mesh Hybrid mesh 

Notes

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by Cook Medical, Inc. (Bloomington, IN).

Author contributions

JGB: Data interpretation, acquisition of data, drafting of manuscript, critical review and final approval of manuscript. KE: Study concept and design, acquisition of data, critical review and final approval of manuscript. ATS: Data interpretation, drafting of manuscript, and final approval of manuscript. MP, JSY, EMP: Acquisition of data, critical review and final approval of manuscript. MK: Study concept and design, acquisition of data, critical review and final approval of manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

James G. Bittner IV receives honoraria for speaking/teaching and consulting fees from Cook Medical, CR Bard (Davol), and Intuitive Surgical as well as research support from Cook Biotech, CR Bard (Davol), and EnteroMedics. Melissa Phillips LaPinska receives consulting fees from CR Bard (Davol) and Acelity and research support from Cook Biotech. Jin S. Yoo receives honoraria for speaking/teaching and consulting fees from Novadaq, Stryker, Medtronic, and W.L. Gore, consulting fees from Teleflex, and research support from Cook Biotech. Eric M. Pauli receives honoraria for speaking/teaching from Cook Medical, research support from Cook Biotech, CR Bard (Davol), and MicroMatrix, and personal fees from Boston Scientific, Actuated Medical, and WL Gore. Matthew Kroh receives honoraria for speaking/teaching from Cook Medical, research support from Cook Biotech, and consulting fees from Levita Magnetics, Medtronic, and Teleflex. Kevin El-Hayek and Andrew T. Strong has no disclosures

References

  1. 1.
    Abid S, El-Hayek K (2016) Which mesh or graft? Prosthetic devices for abdominal wall reconstruction. Br J Hosp Med Lond Engl 77:157–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    FitzGerald JF, Kumar AS (2014) Biologic versus synthetic mesh reinforcement: what are the pros and cons? Clin Colon Rectal Surg 27:140–148CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP (1998) Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg Chic Ill 1960 133:378–382Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bendavid R, Lou W, Grischkan D, Koch A, Petersen K, Morrison J, Iakovlev V (2016) A mechanism of mesh-related post-herniorrhaphy neuralgia. Hernia 20:357–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2012) The biology of biologics: basic science and clinical concepts. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:9S–17SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Novitsky YW (2013) Biology of biological meshes used in hernia repair. Surg Clin North Am 93:1211–1215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blatnik J, Jin J, Rosen M (2008) Abdominal hernia repair with bridging acellular dermal matrix–an expensive hernia sac. Am J Surg 196:47–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Castro Brás LE, Shurey S, Sibbons PD (2012) Evaluation of crosslinked and non-crosslinked biologic prostheses for abdominal hernia repair. Hernia 16:77–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Butler CE, Burns NK, Campbell KT, Mathur AB, Jaffari MV, Rios CN (2010) Comparison of cross-linked and non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrices for ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 211:368–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    da Costa RG, Lontra MB, Scalco P, Cavazzola LT, Gurski RR (2009) Polylactic acid film versus acellular porcine small intestinal submucosa mesh in peritoneal adhesion formation in rats. Acta Cir Bras 24:128–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prevel CD, Eppley BL, Summerlin DJ, Jackson JR, McCarty M, Badylak SF (1995) Small intestinal submucosa: utilization for repair of rodent abdominal wall defects. Ann Plast Surg 35:374–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wathen C, Batayyah E, El-Hayek K (2014) First human use of hybrid biologic-permanent mesh in a complex laparoscopic hernia repair. Poster Presentation. SAGES 2014 Annual Meeting, NashvilleGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    El-Hayek K, Yoo J, Pauli EM, Bittner J, Kroh M (2015) Initial clinical use of zenapro™ hybrid hernia repair device for ventral hernia repair. Poster Presentation. The First World Conference on Abdominal Wall Hernia Surgery. Milan April 25–29, 2015Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ventral Hernia Working Group, 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 148:544–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Christine Silver L, Jarvis WR (1999) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Centers for Disease Control, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 RKJ, Simons MP, Smietański M, Sommeling C, Tollens T, Vierendeels T, Kingsnorth A (2009) Classification of primary and incisional abdominal wall hernias. Hernia 13:407–414CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 160:828–838CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Le D, Deveney CW, Reaven NL, Funk SE, McGaughey KJ, Martindale RG (2013) Mesh choice in ventral hernia repair: so many choices, so little time. Am J Surg 205:602–607 (discussion 607)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lindberg K, Badylak SF (2001) Porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS): a bioscaffold supporting in vitro primary human epidermal cell differentiation and synthesis of basement membrane proteins. Burns J Int Soc Burn Inj 27:254–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clarke KM, Lantz GC, Salisbury SK, Badylak SF, Hiles MC, Voytik SL (1996) Intestine submucosa and polypropylene mesh for abdominal wall repair in dogs. J Surg Res 60:107–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Badylak S, Kokini K, Tullius B, Simmons-Byrd A, Morff R (2002) Morphologic study of small intestinal submucosa as a body wall repair device. J Surg Res 103:190–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Valentin JE, Turner NJ, Gilbert TW, Badylak SF (2010) Functional skeletal muscle formation with a biologic scaffold. Biomaterials 31:7475–7484CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wolf MT, Dearth CL, Ranallo CA, LoPresti ST, Carey LE, Daly KA, Brown BN, Badylak SF (2014) Macrophage polarization in response to ECM coated polypropylene mesh. Biomaterials 35:6838–6849CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hernandez Moreno M, Franklin ME, del Real Roma Z (2014) The use of porcine small intestinal submucosa Surgisis now as BioDesign as prosthetic material in abdominal laparoscopic hernia repair: long term follow-up at Texas Endoscopy Institute. Poster Presentation. 16th Hernia Repair Meeting, San Antonio. August 20-22, 2014Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Franklin ME, Treviño JM, Portillo G, Vela I, Glass JL, González 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 22:1941–1946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gupta A, Zahriya K, Mullens PL, Salmassi S, Keshishian A (2006) Ventral herniorrhaphy: experience with two different biosynthetic mesh materials, surgisis and alloderm. Hernia 10:419–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • James G. BittnerIV
    • 1
  • Kevin El-Hayek
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andrew T. Strong
    • 2
  • Melissa Phillips LaPinska
    • 4
  • Jin S. Yoo
    • 5
  • Eric M. Pauli
    • 6
  • Matthew Kroh
    • 2
    • 3
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryVirginia Commonwealth University School of MedicineRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Department of General Surgery, Digestive Disease and Surgery InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryLerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Tennessee Graduate School of MedicineKnoxvilleUSA
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryDuke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Department of SurgeryThe Pennsylvania State University College of MedicineHersheyUSA
  7. 7.Digestive Disease InstituteCleveland Clinic Abu DhabiAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations