Biological Mesh Reinforcement Research Articles

Component Separation Decreases Hernia Recurrence Rates in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction with Biologic Mesh.

It is not clear whether mesh-reinforced anterior component separation (CS) for abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) results in better outcomes than mesh-reinforced primary fascial closure (PFC) without CS, particularly when acellular dermal matrix is used. The authors compared outcomes of CS versus PFC repair in AWR procedures aiming to determine whether CS results in better outcomes. This retrospective study of prospectively collected data included 461 patients who underwent AWR with acellular dermal matrix during a 10-year period at an academic cancer center. The primary endpoint was hernia recurrence; the secondary outcome was surgical-site occurrence (SSO). A total of 322 patients (69.9%) who underwent mesh-reinforced AWR with CS (AWR-CS) and 139 (30.1%) who underwent AWR with PFC (AWR-PFC) without CS were compared. AWR-PFC repairs had a higher hernia recurrence rate than AWR-CS repairs (10.8% versus 5.3%; P = 0.002) but similar overall complication (28.8% versus 31.4%; P = 0.580) and SSO (18.7% versus 25.2%; P = 0.132) rates. CS repairs experienced significantly higher wound separation (17.7% versus 7.9%; P = 0.007), fat necrosis (8.7% versus 2.9%; P = 0.027), and seroma (5.6% versus 1.4%; P = 0.047) rates than PFC repairs. The best cutoff with respect to hernia recurrence was 7.1 cm of abdominal defect width. AWR-CS repair resulted in a lower hernia recurrence rate than AWR-PFC but, despite the additional surgery, had similar SSO rates on long-term follow-up. Therapeutic, III.

Bridged repair of large ventral hernia defects using an ovine reinforced biologic: A case series

IntroductionOf all hernia types, large ventral hernias have the most impact on patient quality of life, however they are also the most difficult type of hernia to repair and are associated with high rates of complications. This case series describes repair of large ventral hernias with an ovine reinforced biologic in a complex patient cohort with comorbidities and concomitant procedures. MethodsThe author performed bridged repair with an ovine reinforced biologic in 19 consecutive high-risk patients over a 5-year period. In all cases the reinforced biologic was used as an underlay. OutcomesOf the 19 patients, six (32%) experienced a surgical site occurrence including infection, seroma, abscess, fistula, bioloma, or bowel obstruction. Three patients (16%) had recurrences with two out of three of the recurrences occurring within 6 months of surgery. ConclusionsRates of SSO's and recurrences using ovine reinforced tissue matrix (RTM) were in line with or better than other published studies of bridged repair utilizing biologic or synthetic mesh reinforcement. Ovine RTM's should therefore be considered in complex large ventral hernia repairs.

C-reactive protein is a predictive factor for complications after incisional hernia repair using a biological mesh

The introduction of biological or absorbable synthetic meshes has provided an alternative to conventional repair for incisional hernia. The ability to predict the development of complications after hernia surgery is important, as it guides surgical planning and patient management. This retrospective study assessed whether the postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) level can predict complications after incisional hernia repair using biological mesh reinforcement. Patients who underwent incisional hernia repair surgery using biological meshes between February 2009 and February 2015 were screened for study inclusion. Patients included in the study were divided into two groups: those with and without postoperative complications. The two groups were analysed based on sex, surgical operation, length of intensive care unit stay (ICU), complications and mortality. Laboratory values, including white blood cell (WBC) count and CRP levels, were determined preoperatively and up to postoperative day (POD) 10. Postoperative complications requiring further management occurred in 32 of the 60 patients (53.3%). Among 47 patients, the mean CRP and WBC levels were 6.6 mg/L and 9.073 G/L in the group without complications vs. 141.0 mg/L, 16.704 G/L in the group with complications (p < 0.001). Patients with complications also had a longer ICU stay (10.1 vs. 0.6 days, p < 0.0001). A cut-off was 101 mg/L and offered 80.00% sensitivity (IC 61.43% to 92.29) and 95.24% specificity (76.18% to 99.88%) for postoperative complication. The rate of postoperative complications before POD10 was 95% in the group with CRP > 100 mg/L vs. 46% in the group with CRP < 100 mg/L (p = 0.000372). A high postoperative CRP level (> 100 mg/L) up to POD10 may serve as a predictor of postoperative complications in patients undergoing incisional hernia using biological meshes.

A Surgical Alternative in the Treatment of Recurrent Diaphragmatic Hernia after Total Gastrectomy

Summary:Treament of hiatal hernia remains a challenge for surgeons. The techniques for treatment started with cruroplasty, which was later associated with extensive mobilization of the esophagus, with or without fundoplication. Other solutions included the use of synthetic or biological mesh and autologous tissue reinforcement. Despite these therapeutic strategies, the recurrence rate for hiatal hernia is significant, and no existing treatments have had much success in reducing this rate. Total gastrectomy, as in this case, represents an additional challenge because of the absence of gastric tissue, which can buttress the pillars’ repair. This case report introduces a novel approach for the treatment of recurrent hiatal hernia, using a pedicled vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap.

Prophylactic biological mesh reinforcement versus standard closure of stoma site (ROCSS): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

SummaryBackgroundClosure of an abdominal stoma, a common elective operation, is associated with frequent complications; one of the commonest and impactful is incisional hernia formation. We aimed to investigate whether biological mesh (collagen tissue matrix) can safely reduce the incidence of incisional hernias at the stoma closure site.MethodsIn this randomised controlled trial (ROCSS) done in 37 hospitals across three European countries (35 UK, one Denmark, one Netherlands), patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective ileostomy or colostomy closure were randomly assigned using a computer-based algorithm in a 1:1 ratio to either biological mesh reinforcement or closure with sutures alone (control). Training in the novel technique was standardised across hospitals. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was occurrence of clinically detectable hernia 2 years after randomisation (intention to treat). A sample size of 790 patients was required to identify a 40% reduction (25% to 15%), with 90% power (15% drop-out rate). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02238964.FindingsBetween Nov 28, 2012, and Nov 11, 2015, of 1286 screened patients, 790 were randomly assigned. 394 (50%) patients were randomly assigned to mesh closure and 396 (50%) to standard closure. In the mesh group, 373 (95%) of 394 patients successfully received mesh and in the control group, three patients received mesh. The clinically detectable hernia rate, the primary outcome, at 2 years was 12% (39 of 323) in the mesh group and 20% (64 of 327) in the control group (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0·62, 95% CI 0·43–0·90; p=0·012). In 455 patients for whom 1 year postoperative CT scans were available, there was a lower radiologically defined hernia rate in mesh versus control groups (20 [9%] of 229 vs 47 [21%] of 226, adjusted RR 0·42, 95% CI 0·26–0·69; p<0·001). There was also a reduction in symptomatic hernia (16%, 52 of 329 vs 19%, 64 of 331; adjusted relative risk 0·83, 0·60–1·16; p=0·29) and surgical reintervention (12%, 42 of 344 vs 16%, 54 of 346: adjusted relative risk 0·78, 0·54–1·13; p=0·19) at 2 years, but this result did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences were seen in wound infection rate, seroma rate, quality of life, pain scores, or serious adverse events.InterpretationReinforcement of the abdominal wall with a biological mesh at the time of stoma closure reduced clinically detectable incisional hernia within 24 months of surgery and with an acceptable safety profile. The results of this study support the use of biological mesh in stoma closure site reinforcement to reduce the early formation of incisional hernias.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Research for Patient Benefit and Allergan.

Biological Mesh Repair of Paraesophageal Hernia: An Analysis of Our Outcomes.

Introduction: Symptomatic paraesophageal hernia (PEH) is an indication for surgical repair. Laparoscopic suture repair has high recurrence rates. Many surgeons prefer mesh repair to reduce PEH recurrence. Several types of mesh, synthetic and biological, are in use. Synthetic mesh has a risk of erosion and stricture, hence we preferred biological mesh repair. Our aim in this study is to assess medium-term outcomes of PEH repair with the use of biological mesh reinforcement over the cruroplasty. We also aimed to correlate clinical recurrences with radiological recurrences. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of 154 consecutive patients from a single centre who underwent a standardized laparoscopic suture repair of the hiatus reinforced with an on-lay patch of Surgisis (porcine small intestine submucosa) and fundoplication. The mean age of the patients was 65 years. All patients were called for regular clinical follow-up and a barium study. Modified GERD-HRQL symptom severity instrument was used to assess postoperative symptoms and satisfaction. Results: The mean follow-up for barium swallow and clinical assessment were 28.42 ± 21.2 and 33.69 ± 23.46 months. The mean patient satisfaction score after surgery was 4.43 ± 1.09 (0-5). Follow-up barium swallow was performed in 122 (79.22%), 87 (56.49%) patients completed clinical follow-up questionnaire, and 77 (50%) had both. Symptomatic recurrence was noted in 25 (28.73%), recurrence on barium swallow 25(20.4%), and 10 (12.98%) had both. The reoperation rate was 3.25%. Mann-Whitney U test showed no statistical significance in reflux-related score between radiological recurrence group compared with no radiological recurrence (P = .06). Conclusions: Biological mesh repair of PEH is safe and well accepted by patients. There is significantly high PEH recurrence rate in long-term follow-up, even with mesh repair. Majority of these recurrences are small, asymptomatic, and the reoperation rate is very low.

#1 Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS) randomized controlled trial: A multicentre, international evaluation of biological mesh reinforcement of stoma (oral presentation)

#1 Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS) randomized controlled trial: A multicentre, international evaluation of biological mesh reinforcement of stoma (oral presentation)

Biological mesh reinforcement of complex and contaminated midline laparotomy achieving fascial closure: A cross-sectional review of stage of innovation

Biological mesh reinforcement of complex and contaminated midline laparotomy achieving fascial closure: A cross-sectional review of stage of innovation

Biologic Keyhole Mesh in Hiatal Hernia Repair.

Background and Objectives:Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair (LPEHR) is the new standard, but the use of mesh is still debated. Biologic mesh has shown great promise, but only the U-shaped onlay has been extensively studied. Postoperative dysphagia has historically been a concern with the use of synthetic keyhole mesh and subsequently slowed its adoption. The purpose of our study was to identify the incidence of postoperative dysphagia in a series of patients who underwent laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair with novel placement of keyhole biologic mesh.Methods:Thirty consecutive patients who underwent hernia repair with primary suture cruroplasty and human acellular dermal matrix keyhole mesh reinforcement were reviewed over a 2-year period. All procedures were performed at a single institution. Postoperative symptoms were retrospectively identified. Any postoperative hernia on imaging was defined as radiographic recurrence.Results:Of the 30 consecutive patients who underwent hernia repair, 3 (10%) had mild preoperative dysphagia. The number remained unchanged after LPEHR with keyhole mesh. Return of mild reflux symptoms occurred in 6 (20%) patients. Repeat imaging was performed in 11 patients (37%) at an average of 8 months with 2 slight recurrences. All hernias were classified on preoperative imaging as large hiatal hernias. There were no postoperative complications.Conclusion:Laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair with biologic keyhole mesh reinforcement has a low recurrence rate and no increase in postoperative dysphagia. The traditional belief that keyhole mesh has a higher incidence of dysphagia was not evident in this series.

Complex abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of active infection and contamination: a systematic review of hernia and fistula recurrence rates

Minimal evidence exists to guide surgeons on the risk of complications when performing abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) in the presence of active infection, contamination or enterocutaneous fistula. This study aims to establish the outcomes of contaminated complex AWR. Analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Pubmed databases was performed. Studies reporting exclusively on single-staged repair of contaminated complex AWR were included. Pooled data were analysed to establish rates of complications. Sixteen studies were included, consisting of 601 contaminated complex AWRs, of which 233 included concurrent enterocutaneous fistula repair. The average follow-up period was 26.7months. There were 146 (24.3%) reported hernia recurrences. When stratified by repair method, suture repair alone had the lowest rate of recurrence (14.2%), followed by nonabsorbable synthetic mesh reinforcement (21.2%), biological mesh (25.8%) and absorbable synthetic mesh (53.1%). Hernia recurrence was higher when fascial closure was not achieved. Of the 233 enterocutaneous fistula repairs, fistula recurrence was seen in 24 patients (10.3%). Suture repair alone had the lowest rate of recurrence (1.6%), followed by nonbiological mesh (10.3%) and biological mesh reinforcement (12%). Forty-six per cent of patients were reported as having a wound-related complication and the mortality rate was 2.5%. It is feasible to perform simultaneous enterocutaneous fistula repair and AWR as rates of recurrent fistula are comparable with series describing enterocutaneous fistula repair alone. Hernias recurred in nearly a quarter of cases. This analysis is limited by a lack of comparative data and variability of outcome reporting.

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

Previous studies suggest that bridged mesh repair for abdominal wall reconstruction may result in worse outcomes than mesh-reinforced, primary fascial closure, particularly when acellular dermal matrix is used. We compared our outcomes of bridged versus reinforced repair using ADM in abdominal wall reconstruction procedures. This retrospective study included 535 consecutive patients at our cancer center who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction either for an incisional hernia or for abdominal wall defects left after excision of malignancies involving the abdominal wall with underlay mesh. A total of 484 (90%) patients underwent mesh-reinforced abdominal wall reconstruction and 51 (10%) underwent bridged repair abdominal wall reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix was used, respectively, in 98% of bridged and 96% of reinforced repairs. We compared outcomes between these 2 groups using propensity score analysis for risk-adjustment in multivariate analysis and for 1-to-1 matching. Bridged repairs had a greater hernia recurrence rate (33.3% vs 6.2%, P<.001), a greater overall complication rate (59% vs 30%, P=.001), and worse freedom from hernia recurrence (log-rank P<.001) than reinforced repairs. Bridged repairs also had a greater rate of wound dehiscence (26% vs 14%, P=.034) and mesh exposure (10% vs 1%, P=.003) than mesh-reinforced abdominal wall reconstruction. When the treatment method was adjusted for propensity score in the propensity-score-matched pairs (n=100), we found that the rates of hernia recurrence (32% vs 6%, P=.002), overall complications (32% vs 6%, P=.002), and freedom from hernia recurrence (68% vs 32%, P=.001) rates were worse after bridged repair. We did not observe differences in wound healing and mesh complications between the 2 groups. In our population of primarily cancer patients at MD Anderson Cancer Center bridged repair for abdominal wall reconstruction is associated with worse outcomes than mesh-reinforced abdominal wall reconstruction. Particularly when employing acellular dermal matrix, reinforced repairs should be used for abdominal wall reconstruction whenever possible.

Feasibility study from a randomized controlled trial of standard closure of a stoma site vs biological mesh reinforcement.

Hernia formation occurs at closed stoma sites in up to 30% of patients. The Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site (ROCSS) randomized controlled trial is evaluating whether placement of biological mesh during stoma closure safely reduces hernia rates compared with closure without mesh, without increasing surgical or wound complications. This paper aims to report recruitment, deliverability and safety from the internal feasibility study. A multicentre, patient and assessor blinded, randomized controlled trial, delivered through surgical trainee research networks. A 90-patient internal feasibility study assessed recruitment, randomization, deliverability and early (30day) safety of the novel surgical technique (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02238964). The feasibility study recruited 90 patients from the 104 considered for entry (45 to mesh, 45 to no mesh). Seven of eight participating centres randomized patients within 30days of opening. Overall, 41% of stomas were created for malignant disease and 73% were ileostomies. No mesh-specific complications occurred. Thirty-one postoperative adverse events were experienced by 31 patients, including surgical site infection (9%) and postoperative ileus (6%). One mesh was removed for re-access to the abdominal cavity, for reasons unrelated to the mesh. Independent review by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee of adverse event data by treatment allocation found no safety concerns. Multicentre randomization to this trial of biological mesh is feasible, with no early safety concerns. Progression to the full Phase III trial has continued. ROCSS shows that trainee research networks can efficiently develop and deliver complex interventional surgical trials.

Outcomes of Retromuscular Porcine Biologic Mesh Repairs Using Transversus Abdominis Release Reconstruction

Optimal mesh reinforcement and operative technique for major abdominal wall reconstructions (AWR) remain debatable. Posterior component separation via transversus abdominis release (TAR) allows for wide sublay mesh reinforcement with durable reconstruction, and has been gaining popularity in recent years. Although biologic mesh has been associated with mixed results, outcomes of AWR with bioprosthetics have not been well elucidated to date. We evaluated our outcomes of TAR reconstructions with retromuscular porcine biologic mesh reinforcement. Consecutive patients undergoing AWR using TAR with biologic mesh sublay reinforcement were identified in our prospective databases and analyzed. We characterized patient demographics and perioperative details. Main outcomes measures included wound complications and hernia recurrence. Between 2007 and 2014, seventy-seven patients (mean age 56 years, mean BMI 35 kg/m(2)) underwent AWR using TAR with biologic mesh. Mean hernia size was 306 ± 128 cm(2) with mean width of 14.3 ± 3.3 cm. The vast majority of patients had grade 3 hernias (92%) and more than half had a history of wound infection (55%). There were 22 (28.6%) surgical site infections consisting of 14 deep, 7 superficial, and 1 organ-space surgical site infections. There were no incidences of chronic mesh infection or explantation. In patients with at least 12 months follow-up (mean duration 28.2 months), there were 8 (12.5%) recurrences. Complex hernias repaired with TAR and retromuscular porcine biologic mesh reinforcement are associated with a low rate of serious perioperative wound/mesh complications. Additionally, our approach resulted in a fairly low rate of hernia recurrences in this complex cohort of patients. We believe that the TAR approach and retromuscular mesh placement can be beneficial when biologic mesh reinforcement is chosen during complex and/or contaminatedabdominal wall reconstructions.

Onlay parastomal hernia repair with cross-linked porcine dermal collagen biologic mesh: long-term results.

The optimal technique and mesh type for parastomal hernia repair have yet to be ascertained. Biologic meshes have been advocated in parastomal hernia repair due to purported resistance to infection in contaminated fields. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of additionally cross-linked acellular porcine dermal collagen mesh (Permacol) for onlay parastomal hernia repair. A retrospective review of case notes, and abdominal CT scans when available, was performed for consecutive patients who had a parastomal hernia repaired between January 2007 and May 2010. All hernias were repaired with onlay placement of the biologic mesh. Hernias were classified according to the Moreno-Matias classification where CT scans were available. Over a 34-month period, 30 consecutive patients, median age 74 years, 17 female, underwent parastomal hernia repair using onlay biologic mesh. There were 23 paracolostomy and seven paraileostomy hernias. The hernia was primary in 26 patients. Pre-operative CT scans were available in 18 patients (Moreno-Matias Type 1 = 1, Type 2 = 4, Type 3 = 13). There was one perioperative death, and 29 patients were available for follow-up, and median duration of follow-up (either CT or clinical) was 36 months (range 3-79). Twenty-six patients developed recurrence of the parastomal hernia (89.6%), and median time to recurrence was 10 months (range 3-72),with Moreno-Matias Type 1 = 0, Type 2 = 4, Type 3 = 14, unknown = 8. Fifteen out of 26 patients have had repairs of the recurrence using a variety of techniques. Of these, 10 patients have had further recurrence. Onlay repair of parastomal hernia with cross-linked porcine dermal collagen biologic mesh reinforcement has poor long-term outcomes with unacceptably high recurrence rates and should not be performed.

Prevention of a Parastomal Hernia by Biological Mesh Reinforcement.

In the field of hernia prevention, the prophylactic mesh-reinforcement of stoma-sites is one of the most controversially discussed issues. The incidence of parastomal hernias in the literature reported to be up to 48.1% after end colostomy and up to 30.8% after loop of colostomy, but still remains uncertain due to diagnostic variety of clinical or radiological methods, heterogeneous patient groups and variable follow-up intervals. Anyway, the published data regarding the use of synthetic or bio-prostethic meshes in the prevention of parastomal hernia at the primary operation are very scarce. A literature search of the Medline database in terms of biological prophylactic mesh implantation in stoma creation identified six systematic reviews, two randomized controlled trials (RCT), two case-controlled studies, and one technical report. In a systematic review focusing on the prevention of parastomal hernia including only RCTs encompassing one RCT using bio-prosthetic mesh the incidence of herniation was 12.5% compared to 53% in the control group (p < 0.0001). In one RCT and two case-control studies, respectively, there was a significant smaller incidence of parastomal herniation as well as a similar complication rate compared to the control group. Only in one RCT, no significant difference regarding the incidence of parastomal hernia was reported with comparable complication rates. Thus, so far two RCT and two case-control studies are published with prophylactic bio-prosthetic reinforcement in stoma sites. The majority revealed significant better results in terms of parastomal herniation and without any mesh-related complications in comparison to the non mesh group. Further, multicenter RCT are required to achieve a sufficient level of recommendation.

The use of crural relaxing incisions with biologic mesh reinforcement during laparoscopic repair of complex hiatal hernias.

Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair has a better chance of success if the hiatus is closed without tension. This study attempts to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of hiatal hernia recurrence in patients who undergo hiatal closure with diaphragmatic relaxing incisions? (2) Can biologic mesh be safely substituted for synthetic mesh as coverage of the relaxing incisions? We identified all patients who underwent laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair at our institution between 2007 and 2013 and reviewed their clinical records. Radiologic recurrence was identified by an experienced radiologist and defined as the presence of any abdominal contents located above the diaphragm on esophagram. Clinical recurrence was defined as little or no improvement in symptoms, the development of a new symptom, or the need for medical, endoscopic, or surgical treatment of postoperative symptoms. A minimum of 6months of radiologic and clinical follow-up was available for 146 (40%) patients, including 16 with relaxing incisions. There were 66 (45%) recurrent hernias detected on esophagram. There was no difference in the rate of recurrent hiatal hernia among the three groups: Primary closure of the hiatus (21/36 [58%]), primary closure with biologic mesh reinforcement (36/94 [38%]), and relaxing incision with biologic mesh reinforcement (9/16 [56%]; p=0.428). Two reoperations were performed on patients who underwent left relaxing incisions and developed symptomatic diaphragmatic hernias through the left relaxing incisions. There were no complications associated with use of biologic mesh at the hiatus. Rate of recurrent hiatal hernia is similar between patients who undergo diaphragmatic relaxing incisions and patients who undergo primary hiatal closure. Relaxing incisions can be safely performed on either crus; however, biologic mesh should not be used to patch a left-sided relaxing incision due to the risk of developing a diaphragmatic hernia.

Outcomes Analysis of Biologic Mesh Use for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction in Clean-Contaminated and Contaminated Ventral Hernia Repair

Repair of grade 3 and grade 4 ventral hernias is a distinct challenge, given the potential for infection, and the comorbid nature of the patient population. This study evaluates our institutional outcomes when performing single-stage repair of these hernias, with biologic mesh for abdominal wall reinforcement. A prospectively maintained database was reviewed for all patients undergoing repair of grade 3 (potentially contaminated) or grade 4 (infected) hernias, as classified by the Ventral Hernia Working Group. All those patients undergoing repair with component separation techniques and biologic mesh reinforcement were included. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Univariate analysis was performed to define factors predictive of hernia recurrence and wound complications. A total of 41 patients underwent single-stage repair of grade 3 and grade 4 hernias during a 4-year period. The overall postoperative wound infection rate was 15%, and hernia recurrence rate was 12%. Almost all recurrences were seen in grade 4 hernia repairs, and in those patients undergoing bridging repair of the hernia. One patient required removal of the biologic mesh. Those factors predicting hernia recurrence were smoking (P = 0.023), increasing body mass index (P = 0.012), increasing defect size (P = 0.010), and bridging repair (P = 0.042). No mesh was removed due to perioperative infection. Mean follow-up time for this patient population was 25 months. Single-stage repair of grade 3 hernias performed with component separation and biologic mesh reinforcement is effective and offers a low recurrence rate. Furthermore, the use of biologic mesh allows for avoidance of mesh explantation in instances of wound breakdown or infection. Bridging repairs are associated with a high recurrence rate, as is single-stage repair of grade 4 hernias.

PWE-253 Feasibility study: a randomised controlled trial of standard closure of stoma site versus biologic mesh reinforcement

PWE-253 Feasibility study: a randomised controlled trial of standard closure of stoma site versus biologic mesh reinforcement

Remodeling Characteristics and Collagen Distribution in Biological Scaffold Materials Explanted From Human Subjects After Abdominal Soft Tissue Reconstruction

The study purpose was to evaluate the associations between patient characteristics or surgical site classifications and the histologic remodeling scores of biologic meshes biopsied from abdominal soft tissue repair sites in the first attempt to generate a multivariable risk-prediction model of nonconstructive remodeling. Host characteristics and surgical site assessments may predict remodeling degree for biologic meshes used to reinforce abdominal tissue repair sites. Biologic meshes were biopsied from the abdominal tissue repair sites of n = 40 patients during an abdominal reexploration, stained with hematoxylin and eosin, and evaluated according to a semi-quantitative scoring system for remodeling characteristics (cell types, cell infiltration, extracellular matrix deposition, scaffold degradation, fibrous encapsulation, and neovascularization) and a mean composite score. Biopsies were stained with Sirius Red and Fast Green and analyzed to determine the collagen I:III ratio. On the basis of univariate analyses between subject clinical characteristics or surgical site classification and the histologic remodeling scores, cohort variables were selected for multivariable regression models using P ≤ 0.200. The model selection process for cell infiltration score yielded 2 variables: age at mesh implantation and mesh classification (C statistic = 0.989). For the mean composite score, the model selection process yielded 2 variables: age at mesh implantation and mesh classification (r = 0.449). These preliminary results constitute the first steps in generating a risk-prediction model that predicts the patients and clinical circumstances most likely to experience nonconstructive remodeling of abdominal tissue repair sites with biologic mesh reinforcement.

Biologic versus Synthetic Mesh Reinforcement: What are the Pros and Cons?

Preserving patients' native tissues has posed many challenges for surgeons. Increased life expectancy is leading to a proportionately older surgical population with weaker tissues. The growing population of morbidly obese patients in addition to those with multiple comorbidities which influence the native strength and perfusion of tissues compounds the surgeon's challenge. Certainly, there is a rising demand for materials to replace or augment a patient's native tissue when it has been compromised. Over time, the number of products available has increased substantially. The ideal substitute, however, is debatable. The manufacturing and processing of these materials has become more complex and this has resulted in a significant increase in cost. The composition of the mesh, clinical scenario, and operative technique all interact to impact the long-term results. Surgeons require a thorough understanding of these products to guide proper selection and use, to ensure optimal outcomes for patients, and to properly steward financial resources. This review will outline the properties of commonly used materials, highlighting the strength and weakness of each. It will then discuss recommendations regarding mesh selection, coding, and reimbursement. While general principles and trends can be highlighted, further studies of biologic versus synthetic meshes are clearly necessary.