Non-cross-linked biological mesh in complex abdominal wall hernia: a cohort study

A Scoping Review of Quality-of-Life Assessments Employed in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons use several quality-of-life instruments to track outcomes following abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR); however, there is no universally agreed upon instrument. We review the instruments used in AWR and report their utilization trends within the literature.

METHODS

This scoping review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases. All published articles in the English language that employed a quality-of-life assessment for abdominal wall hernia repair were included. Studies which focused solely on aesthetic abdominoplasty, autologous breast reconstruction, rectus diastasis, pediatric patients, inguinal hernia, or femoral hernias were excluded.

RESULTS

Six hernia-specific tools and six generic health tools were identified. The Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life Survey and Carolinas Comfort Scale are the most common hernia-specific tools, while the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) is the most common generic health tool. Notably, the SF-36 is also the most widely used tool for AWR outcomes overall. Each tool captures a unique set of patient outcomes which ranges from abdominal wall functionality to mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of AWR have been widely studied with several different assessments proposed and used over the past few decades. These instruments allow for patient assessment of pain, quality of life, functional status, and mental health. Commonly used tools include the Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life Survey, Carolinas Comfort Scale, and SF-36. Due to the large heterogeneity of available instruments, future work may seek to determine or develop a standardized instrument for characterizing AWR outcomes.

Outcomes of Abdominal Wall Reconstruction with a Bovine versus a Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) is one of the most commonly performed procedures, yet large comparative studies comparing outcomes of AWR using bovine acellular dermal matrix (BADM) and porcine acellular dermal matrix (PADM) are lacking.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent AWR from March of 2005 to June of 2019, the primary comparative outcome measure was hernia recurrence with BADM versus PADM. The secondary outcome was the incidence of surgical-site occurrence (SSO) and surgical-site infection. A propensity score matching approach was applied to compare the clinical outcomes between the two study groups.

RESULTS

The authors identified 725 patients who underwent AWR using BADM (50.5%) or PADM (49.5%). Their mean ± SD age was 59.8 ± 11.5 years, mean body mass index was 31.4 ± 6.7 kg/m 2 , and mean follow-up time was 42 ± 29 months. With propensity score matching, 219 matched pairs were identified. Hernia recurrence rates in BADM (11.4%) and PADM (13.7%) groups did not differ significantly ( P = 0.793). SSO (26.5% versus 29.2%; P = 0.518) and SSI (13.2% versus 11%; P = 0.456) rates did not differ significantly in the PADM and BADM groups, respectively. Conditional logistic regression model and marginal Cox proportional hazards regression model determined that type of acellular dermal matrix was not significantly associated with SSOs (adjusted OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.70; P = 0.589) or hernia recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.42; P = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Both BADMs and PADMs provide durable, long-term outcomes. The hernia recurrence and postoperative surgical complication rates were not significantly different between BADM and PADM.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Semiresorbable biologic hybrid meshes for ventral abdominal hernia repair in potentially contaminated settings: lower risk of recurrence

In case of potential contamination, implantation of synthetic meshes in hernia and abdominal wall surgery is problematic due to a higher risk of mesh infection. As an alternative, a variety of different biologic meshes have been used. However, relevant data comparing outcome after implantation of these meshes are lacking. Between January 2012 and October 2021, biologic meshes were used for reconstruction of the abdominal wall in 71 patients with preoperative or intraoperative abdominal contamination. In this retrospective study, semiresorbable biologic hybrid meshes (BHM) and completely resorbable meshes (CRM) were compared and analyzed using a Castor EDC database. In 28 patients, semiresorbable biologic hybrid meshes were used; in 43 patients, completely resorbable meshes were used. Both groups showed no difference in age, gender, BMI, operation duration, hernia size and Charlson comorbidity index. The risk degree of surgical-site occurrences was graded according to the Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) classification, and the median value was 3 (range 2-4) in the BHM group and 3 (range 2-4) in the CRM group. Hernia recurrence within 24 months after hernia repair was significantly lower in the BHM group (3.6% vs. 28.9%; p = 0.03), while postoperative complication rate, with respect to seromas in need of therapy (61.4% vs. 55.5%, p = 0.43) and operative revision (28.6% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.22) was not different in either group. Biologic hybrid meshes can be used safely in case of possible contamination. BHM seems to reduce the risk of hernia recurrence compared to completely resorbable biologic meshes, but this has to be investigated further.

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of an Antibiotic-Coated Non-Cross-linked Porcine Acellular Dermal Graft for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction for High-Risk and Contaminated Wounds

BACKGROUND

Abdominal wall reconstruction in high-risk and contaminated cases remains a challenging surgical dilemma. We report long-term clinical outcomes for a rifampin-/minocycline-coated acellular dermal graft (XenMatrix™ AB) in complex abdominal wall reconstruction for patients with a prior open abdomen or contaminated wounds.

METHODS

Patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction at our institution at high risk for surgical site occurrence and reconstructed with XenMatrix™ AB with intent-to-treat between 2014 and 2017 were included. Demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes were collected. The primary outcome was hernia recurrence. The secondary outcomes included length of stay, surgical site occurrence, readmission, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients underwent abdominal wall reconstruction using XenMatrix™ AB during the study period. Two patients died while inpatient from progression of their comorbid diseases and were excluded. Sixty percent of patients had an open abdomen at the time of repair. All patients were from modified Ventral Hernia Working Group class 2 or 3. There were a total of four 30-day infectious complications including superficial cellulitis/fat necrosis (15%) and one intraperitoneal abscess (5%). No patients required reoperation or graft excision. Median clinical follow-up was 38.2 months with a mean of 35.2 +/- 18.5 months. Two asymptomatic recurrences and one symptomatic recurrence were noted during this period with one planning for elective repair of an eventration. Follow-up was extended by phone interview which identified no additional recurrences at a median of 45.5 and mean of 50.5 +/-12.7 months.

CONCLUSION

We present long-term outcomes for patients with high-risk and contaminated wounds who underwent abdominal wall reconstruction reinforced with XenMatrix™ AB to achieve early, permanent abdominal closure. Acceptable outcomes were noted.