Ventral hernia repair with synthetic mesh in a contaminated field: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Short-term outcomes of heavyweight versus mediumweight synthetic mesh in a retrospective cohort of clean-contaminated and contaminated retromuscular ventral hernia repairs

BACKGROUND

Mediumweight (40-60 g/m2) polypropylene (MWPP) mesh has been shown to be safe and effective in CDC class II-III retromuscular ventral hernia repairs (RMVHR). However, MWPP has the potential to fracture, and it is possible that heavyweight (> 75 g/m2) polypropylene mesh has similar outcomes in this context. However, there is limited data on HWPP mesh performance in clean-contaminated and contaminated scenarios. We aimed to compare HWPP to MWPP mesh in CDC class II-III wounds during open RMVHR.

METHODS

The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database was retrospectively queried for a cohort of patients who underwent open RMVHR with MWPP or HWPP mesh placed in CDC class II/III wounds from 2012 to 2023. Mesh types were compared using a 3:1 propensity score-matched analysis. Covariates for matching included CDC classification, BMI, diabetes, smoking within 1 year, hernia, and mesh width. Primary outcome of interest included wound complications. Secondary outcomes included reoperations and readmissions at 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 1496 patients received MWPP or HWPP (1378 vs. 118, respectively) in contaminated RMVHR. After propensity score matching, 351 patients remained in the mediumweight and 117 in the heavyweight mesh group. There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (SSI) rates (13.4% vs. 14.5%, p = 0.877), including deep SSIs (0.3% vs. 0%, p = 1), surgical site occurrence rates (17.9% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.377), surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention (16% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.719), mesh removal (0.3% vs. 0%, p = 1), reoperations (4.6% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.428), or readmissions (12.3% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.504) at 30 days.

CONCLUSION

HWPP mesh was not associated with increased wound morbidity, mesh excisions, reoperations, or readmissions in the early postoperative period compared with MWPP mesh in open RMVHR for CDC II/III cases. Longer follow-up will be necessary to determine if HWPP mesh may be a suitable alternative to MWPP mesh in contaminated scenarios.

Contemporary Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: Emerging Techniques and Trends

Abdominal wall reconstruction is a common and necessary surgery, two factors that drive innovation. This review article examines recent developments in ventral hernia repair including primary fascial closure, mesh selection between biologic, permanent synthetic, and biosynthetic meshes, component separation, and functional abdominal wall reconstruction from a plastic surgery perspective, exploring the full range of hernia repair's own reconstructive ladder. New materials and techniques are examined to explore the ever-increasing options available to surgeons who work within the sphere of ventral hernia repair and provide updates for evolving trends in the field.

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair and Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Recommendations from Evidence-Based Medicine

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of synthetic and biological meshes in ventral hernia repair (VHR) and abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR).

METHODS

We screened all clinical trials that reported the application of synthetic and biological meshes in VHR and AWR using Medline, Web of Science, and Embase (Ovid). Only comparative studies with similar baselines such as age, sex, body mass index, degree of wound contamination, and hernia defects between the intervention and control groups were included. Effect sizes with 95% confidence were pooled using a random- or fixed-effects model based on the size of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis was performed to test the stability of the results.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 1305 participants were included. Biological meshes were associated with significantly higher recurrence rate (OR, 2.09; 95% CI 1.42-3.08; I2 = 50%), surgical site infection (OR, 1.47; 95% CI 1.10-1.97; I2 = 30%), higher re-admission rate (OR, 1.51; 95% CI 1.05-2.17; I2 = 50%), and longer length of hospital stay (SMD, 0.37; 95% CI 0.10-0.65; I2 = 72%). Similar surgical site occurrence, re-operation rate, and mesh explantation rate were observed among biological and synthetic meshes. Biological meshes have no difference in recurrence rate as compared to synthetic meshes, between the clean-contaminated, and contamination-infected fields (OR, 1.41; 95% CI 0.41-4.87 vs 3.00; 95% CI 1.07-8.46; P = 0.36).

CONCLUSION

Synthetic meshes are a safe alternative to biological meshes for VHR and AWR. Considering the high cost of biological meshes, synthetic meshes are more appropriate for the VHR and AWR.

What Mesh Should be Used in Hernia Repair?

Ventral hernia repair is one of the most frequently performed general surgery operations in the world, yet the treatment of clean-contaminated and contaminated cases remains controversial. Biologic mesh has been thought to resist infection, decrease chronic wound complications, and reduce the need for reoperation. Their use continues to be predominant in contaminated and dirty cases. This article is a comprehensive review of what mesh to choose in both clean and contaminated single-staged, open ventral hernia repair with further considerations of tissue incorporation characteristics, cost, safety profiles, complications, recurrence, and long-term outcomes.

One-step totally robotic Hartmann reversal and complex abdominal wall reconstruction with bilateral posterior component separation: a technical note

AIM

This paper describes a robotic approach to combined gastrointestinal continuity restoration and complex abdominal wall reconstruction after Hartmann's procedure complicated by large midline and parastomal hernias.

METHODS

A robotic Hartmann reversal is performed, followed by robotic retromuscular abdominal wall reconstruction of all ventral defects with bilateral posterior component separation using the double-docking approach. Surgical steps are thoroughly described, and the accompanying video highlights critical steps of the procedure, anatomical landmarks and technical details relevant to successful completion.

RESULTS

Complete restoration of the anatomy was achieved with an operative time of 6.5 h. Mobilization occured on day 1, and bowels were opened on day 3. Surgical discharge was possible on day 5. No intra-operative surgical complication occurred and follow-up at 6 months showed no recurrence or mid-term complication.

CONCLUSION

Combined minimally invasive reconstruction of the gastrointestinal tract and abdominal wall was feasible using a robotic system. In addition, potential advantages of postoperative rehabilitation and reduced surgical site complications are suggested. Prospective evaluation of the technique is ongoing.

Ventral hernia repair in high-risk patients and contaminated fields using a single mesh: proportional meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The use of mesh is a common practice in ventral hernia repair (VHR). Lack of consensus on which prosthetic material works better in different settings remains. This meta-analysis aims to summarize the available evidence on hernia recurrence and complications after repair with synthetic, biologic, or biosynthetic/bioabsorbable meshes in hernias grade 2-3 of the Ventral Hernia Working Group modified classification.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in January 2021 using Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and MEDLINE (via PubMed) databases. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and observational studies with adult patients undergoing VHR with either synthetic, biologic, or biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh were included. Outcomes were hernia recurrence, Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO), Surgical Site Infection (SSI), 30 days re-intervention, and infected mesh removal. Random-effects meta-analyses of pooled proportions were performed. Quality of the studies was assessed, and heterogeneity was explored through sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

25 articles were eligible for inclusion. Mean age ranged from 47 to 64 years and participants' follow-up ranged from 1 to 36 months. Biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh reported a 9% (95% CI 2-19%) rate of hernia recurrence, lower than synthetic and biologic meshes. Biosynthetic/bioabsorbable mesh repair also showed a lower incidence of SSI, with a 14% (95% CI 6-24%) rate, and there was no evidence of infected mesh removal. Rates of seroma were similar for the different materials.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis did not show meaningful differences among materials. However, the best proportions towards lower recurrence and complication rates after grade 2-3 VHR were after using biosynthetic/slowly absorbable mesh reinforcement. These results should be taken with caution, as head-to-head comparative studies between biosynthetic and synthetic/biologic meshes are lacking. Although, biosynthetic/bioabsorbable materials could be considered an alternative to synthetic and biologic mesh reinforcement in these settings.

Comparison of outcomes of ventral hernia repair using different meshes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We conducted a network meta-analysis to evaluate potential differences in patient outcomes when different meshes, especially biological meshes, were used for ventral hernia repair.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials.gov databases were searched for studies comparing biological meshes with biological or synthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair. The outcomes were hernia recurrence rate, surgical site infection, and seroma. We performed a two-step network meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of several biological meshes: non-cross-linked human acellular dermal matrix (NCHADM), non-cross-linked porcine ADM (NCPADM), non-cross-linked bovine ADM (NCBADM), cross-linked porcine ADM (CPADM), and porcine small intestinal submucosa (PSIS).

RESULTS

From 6304 publications, 23 studies involving 2603 patients were finally included. We found no differences between meshes in recurrence at 1-year follow-up and in surgical site infection rate. NCBADM was associated with the lowest recurrence rate and the lowest surgical site infection rate. NCHADM implantation was associated with the lowest rate of seroma. PSIS was associated with a higher risk of seroma than NCHADM (pooled risk ratio 3.89, 95% confidence interval 1.13-13.39) and NCPADM (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.29-9.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Our network meta-analysis found no differences in recurrence rate or surgical site infection among different biological meshes. The incidence of postoperative seroma was higher with PSIS than with acellular dermal matrices. We observed large heterogeneity in the studies of ventral hernia repair using biological meshes, and, therefore, well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed.

Risks and Prevention of Surgical Site Infection After Hernia Mesh Repair and the Predictive Utility of ACS-NSQIP

AIM

The aim of this paper was to provide a narrative review of surgical site infection after hernia surgery and the influence of perioperative preventative interventions.

METHODS

The review was based on current national and international guidelines and a literature search.

RESULTS

Mesh infection is a highly morbid complication after hernia surgery, and is associated with hospital re-admission, increased health care costs, re-operation, hernia recurrence, impaired quality of life and plaintiff litigation. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program is a particularly useful resource for the study and evidence-based practise of abdominal wall hernia repair.

DISCUSSION

The three major modifiable patient comorbidities significantly associated with postoperative surgical site infection in hernia surgery are obesity, tobacco smoking and diabetes mellitus. Preoperative optimization includes weight loss, cessation of smoking, and control of diabetes. Intraoperative interventions relate, in particular, to the control of fomite mediated transmission in the operating theatre and prevention of mesh contamination with S. aureus CFUs. Risk management strategies should also target the niche ecological conditions which enable bacterial survival and subsequent biofilm formation on an implanted mesh. Outcomes of mesh infection after hernia surgery are closely related to mesh type and porosity, patient smoking status, presence of MRSA, bacterial adhesion and biofilm production. The use of suction drains and the timing of drain removal are controversial and discussed in detail. Finally, the utility of the ACS-NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator in predicting complications and outcomes in individual patients and the importance of quality improvement initiatives in surgical units are emphasized.

Synthetic Mesh in Contaminated Abdominal Wall Surgery: Friend or Foe? A Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

The use of synthetic mesh in contaminated fields is controversial. In the last decade, published data have grown in this matter suggesting favorable outcomes. However, multiple variables and scenarios that influence the results still make difficult to obtain convincing recommendations.

METHODS

We performed a review of relevant available data in English regarding the use of synthetic meshes in contaminated abdominal wall surgery using the Medline database. Articles including patients undergoing ventral hernia in contaminated fields were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Most studies support the use of synthetic meshes for ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields, as they have shown lower recurrence rate and similar wound morbidity. Although no mesh seems ideal in this setting, most surgeons advocate for the use of reduced-in-weight polypropylene mesh. Sublay location of the prosthesis associated with complete fascial closure appears to offer better results in these patients. In addition, current evidence suggests that the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh when performing a stoma or for stoma reversal incisional hernias might be beneficial.

CONCLUSION

A better understanding of surgical site occurrences and its prevention, as well as the introduction of new reduced-in-weight meshes have allowed using synthetic meshes in a contaminated field. Although the use of mesh has indeed shown promising results in these patients, the surgical team should still balance pros and cons at the time of placing synthetics in contaminated fields.

Laparotomy with suture repair is the most common treatment for obturator hernia: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Obturator hernias are rare and associated with high mortality. However, the optimal surgical approach remains unknown. We aimed to investigate the available evidence and examine the surgical details regarding obturator hernia defect closure as well as the recurrence rates of the different approaches.

METHODS

We reported this scoping review according to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews) and registered the protocol online. A comprehensive literature search in five different databases was conducted. The population was patients undergoing surgery for obturator hernia. Articles were included for data charting if the management of the hernia defect was reported. Data regarding surgical details, and hernia recurrence were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 1299 patients from 313 articles were included. In total, 937 patients underwent open obturator hernia repair, in which 992 hernias were repaired (including some bilateral obturator hernias). A total of 295 patients underwent laparoscopic repair for 341 obturator hernias, and for the remaining 67 patients, type of surgery was not reported. For open surgery, suture repair was the most common method of repair (n = 508, 51%) with a recurrence rate of 10%. For laparoscopic surgery, the most common repair of the defect was mesh repair (n = 299, 88%) with no reported recurrences.

CONCLUSION

Open surgery with primary suture repair is the most common method of repair for obturator hernia but is associated with a recurrence rate of 10%. Laparoscopic mesh repair is becoming more common and have seemingly very low recurrence rates and may be a better method of repair.

An evaluation of clinical and quality of life outcomes after ventral hernia repair with poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh

PURPOSE

Despite continued efforts, recurrence after ventral hernia repair (VHR) remains a common problem. Biosynthetic Phasix^™ (Poly-4-Hydroxybutyrate, P4HB) mesh combines the durability of synthetic mesh with the bio-resistance of biologics. P4HB has shown promising early outcomes, but long-term data are lacking. We examine patients following VHR with P4HB with at least 3 years of follow-up to assess clinical and patient reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

Adult patients (≥ 18 years old) undergoing VHR with P4HB mesh between 10/2015 and 01/2018 by a single surgeon were retrospectively identified. Patients with < 36 months of follow-up were excluded unless they had a documented recurrence. Clinical outcomes and quality of life using the Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey (HerQLes) were assessed.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were included with a median age and body mass index of 61.2 and 31 kg/m², respectively. Mesh was placed in the retromuscular (79%) and onlay (21%) planes with 1/3 of patients having hernias repaired in contaminated fields. There were no mesh infections, enterocutaneous fistulas, or mesh explantations. Nine patients (12.7%) developed recurrence at a median follow-up of 43.1 months [38.2-49.1]. Mesh plane, fixation technique, and Ventral Hernia Working Group were not associated with recurrence. Significant improvement in disease-specific PROs was observed and maintained at 3-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Longitudinal clinical and quality of life outcomes after clean and contaminated VHR with P4HB are limited. Here, we conclude that P4HB is an effective and versatile mesh option for use in abdominal wall reinforcement.