Early Wound Morbidity after Open Ventral Hernia Repair with Biosynthetic or Polypropylene Mesh

Use of Biologic and Biosynthetic Mesh for Ventral Hernia Repair in Current Practice

Importance

Originally developed for use in contaminated fields, there is growing evidence against the use of biologic and biosynthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair. However, its prevalence and patterns of use in current practice are largely unknown.

Objectives

To describe the prevalence of biologic and biosynthetic mesh use in ventral hernia repair and to identify factors associated with its use.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used a statewide clinical registry in Michigan to identify adults who underwent mesh-based ventral hernia repair between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2023. Data analysis was performed from February to May 2024.

Exposures

Use of biologic or biosynthetic mesh vs synthetic mesh.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was use of biologic or biosynthetic mesh, abstracted directly from the operative report. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with use of biologic or biosynthetic mesh.

Results

A total of 10 838 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [14.0] years; 4619 [42.6%] female) who underwent mesh-based ventral hernia repair were identified, among whom 1174 repairs (10.8%) were performed with biologic or biosynthetic mesh and 9664 (89.2%) were performed with synthetic mesh. Of the 1174 cases using biologic or biosynthetic mesh, 1023 (87.1%) had a clean wound classification and 1039 (88.5%) were performed electively. In multivariable logistic regression, wound contamination was associated with increased odds of biologic or biosynthetic mesh use (clean-contaminated: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.17 [95% CI, 1.62-2.89]; contaminated: aOR, 2.95 [95% CI, 1.63-5.34]; dirty or infected: aOR, 36.22 [95% CI, 12.20-107.56]). Other operative factors associated with increased odds of biologic or biosynthetic mesh use included urgent or emergent surgical priority (aOR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.33-2.16]), laparoscopic or robotic approach (aOR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.15-1.50]), larger hernia width (aOR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04] per centimeter), and use of myofascial release (aOR, 2.10 [95% CI, 1.64-2.70]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this large cohort of patients undergoing ventral hernia repair, 1 in 10 mesh-based repairs was performed with biologic or biosynthetic mesh. Although urgent or emergent repair and wound contamination were associated with increased odds of biologic or biosynthetic mesh use, nearly 90% of biologic and biosynthetic mesh use occurred in elective repairs with clean wound classifications. These results raise questions regarding the appropriateness of its application in current practice.

Early wound morbidity and clinical outcomes associated with P4HB mesh compared to permanent synthetic mesh in umbilical and small to medium, routine ventral hernia repairs

Background

Permanent synthetic meshes such as polypropylene (PP) have been utilized for hernia repair for decades, but concerns remain regarding potential long-term, mesh-related complications. A resorbable polymer such as poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) represents an alternative with high initial strength, that gradually resorbs, leaving an abdominal wall that is at least as strong as it would be in its native state. We aimed to compare early wound morbidity and clinical outcomes associated with P4HB to traditional, permanent PP in umbilical and small to medium, routine ventral hernias using data from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC).

Methods

Inclusion criteria for the umbilical cohort included: all Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wound classes, all Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) hernia grades, and hernia defects <3 cm. The small to medium, routine ventral hernia cohort was limited to CDC class I wounds, VHWG hernia grades I and II, and hernia defects <5 cm. The study group was comprised of P4HB meshes; the comparator group was an aggregate of PP meshes. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 30 days.

Results

There was no significant difference in early wound morbidity, readmission, or reoperation between the P4HB and PP cohorts. A small number of patients experienced SSO, with ≤4% requiring procedural intervention. None of the patients (0% in all cases) experienced skin/soft tissue necrosis, infected seroma, infected hematoma, exposed/contaminated/infected mesh, enterocutaneous fistula, graft failure, or pain requiring intervention at 30-days. However, P4HB was associated with significantly greater operative time, length of stay, and use of myofascial release compared to PP (p < 0.05 in all cases).

Conclusions

Short-term clinical outcomes associated with resorbable P4HB mesh are comparable to permanent synthetic PP mesh in umbilical and small to medium, routine ventral hernia repairs, despite significant differences in operative time and length of stay. Longer-term follow-up is needed to expand on the clinical relevance of these short-term findings.

Biosynthetic meshes in contaminated fields: where are we now? A systematic review and meta-analysis in humans

PURPOSE

Selection of an appropriate mesh reinforcement for hernia repair in contaminated fields is a significant problem for surgeons. To date the proper mesh for contaminated fields has not been found. Biosynthetic meshes have emerged as new treatment option in contaminated fields. This study aims to evaluate the postoperative outcomes of biosynthetic meshes in contaminated fields.

METHODS

Systematic electronic search (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus), according to PRISMA criteria, was performed. A literature search of scientific papers was performed by two reviewers until April 2021. Articles were chosen based on reference to biosynthetic meshes, their use in infected fields, and in human subjects. GRADE methodology and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of studies. According to CDC-Centers for Disease Control classes patients were divided into two subgroups, group 1 (CDC class 2) and group 2 (CDC classes 3-4).

RESULTS

The research included 21 articles and 1619 patients were analyzed. Long-term follow-up showed a significant higher recurrence rate than short-term follow-up. P < 0.001. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that the SSI were significantly higher in CDC classes 3-4 than CDC class 2 (P < 0.01). No differences were found in SSO (P = 0.06) and recurrence (P = 0.37) rate among the two groups. Phasix™ was the most common mesh in 15 studies. The mean follow-up was 23.0 months. The surgical site infection (SSI) rate was 17.3%. The surgical site occurrence (SSO) rate was 32.4%. Recurrence rate was 11.5%.

CONCLUSION

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical outcomes of abdominal wall repair using biosynthetic mesh in contaminated-infected settings. The results show good results in patients at high risk of postoperative wound complications. The aim of this study is to add to the growing literature on biosynthetic mesh a picture of current literature evidence to help future researchers performing further studies on this topic.

Comparative long-term effectiveness between ventral hernia repairs with biosynthetic and synthetic mesh

BACKGROUND

Debate exists regarding the most appropriate type of mesh to use in ventral hernia repair (VHR). Meshes are broadly categorized as synthetic or biologic, each mesh with individual advantages and disadvantages. More recently developed biosynthetic mesh has characteristics of both mesh types. The current study aims to examine long-term follow-up data and directly compare outcomes-specifically hernia recurrence-of VHR with biosynthetic versus synthetic mesh.

METHODS

With IRB approval, consecutive cases of VHR (CPT codes 49,560, 49,561, 49,565, and 49,566 with 49,568) performed between 2013 and 2018 at a single institution were reviewed. Local NSQIP data was utilized for patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, CDC Wound Class, comorbidities, and mesh type. A review of electronic medical records provided additional variables including hernia defect size, postoperative wound events to six months, duration of follow-up, and incidence of hernia recurrence. Longevity of repair was measured using Kaplan-Meier method and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Biosynthetic mesh was used in 101 patients (23%) and synthetic mesh in 338 (77%). On average, patients repaired using biosynthetic mesh were older than those with synthetic mesh (57 vs. 52 years; p = .008). Also, ASA Class ≥ III was more common in biosynthetic mesh cases (70.3% vs. 55.1%; p = .016). Patients repaired with biosynthetic mesh were more likely than patients with synthetic mesh to have had a prior abdominal infection (30.7% vs. 19.8%; p = .029). Using a Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was not a significant difference in hernia recurrence between the two mesh types, with both types having Kaplan Meir 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of about 72%.

CONCLUSION

Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, synthetic mesh and biosynthetic mesh result in comparable hernia recurrence rates and surgical site infection rates in abdominal wall reconstruction patients with follow-up to as long as five years.

Permanent vs Absorbable Mesh for Ventral Hernia Repair in Contaminated Fields: Multicenter Propensity-Matched Analysis of 1-Year Outcomes Using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative Database

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, the use of absorbable mesh in contaminated fields aimed to reduce postoperative morbidity at the expense of increased hernia recurrence. This dogma has recently been challenged in randomized trials that demonstrate the advantages of permanent mesh in this setting. Although these studies are of high quality, their reproducibility across institutions is limited. We sought to compare the outcomes between permanent and absorbable mesh in a multicentric cohort from the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients who underwent elective ventral hernia repair in class II and III surgeries from January 2013 to December 2021 were identified within the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative. Outcomes were compared among permanent (P), absorbable synthetic (AS), and biologic (B) mesh at 30 days and 1 year using a propensity score-matched analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2,484 patients were included: 73.4% P, 11.2% AS, and 15.4% B. Of these, 64% were clean-contaminated and 36% contaminated interventions. After propensity score-matched analysis, there was no significant difference between groups regarding surgical site occurrence (P 16%, AS 15%, B 21%, p = 0.13), surgical site infection (P 12%, AS 14%, B 12%, p = 0.64), and surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention at 30 days (P 12%, AS 15%, B 17%, p = 0.1). At 1 year, the recurrence rate was significantly lower among the permanent group (P 23%, AS 40%, B 32%, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicentric cohort, permanent mesh has equivalent 30-day outcomes and lower rates of hernia recurrence at 1 year after hernia repair in contaminated fields.

A paradigm shift for diaphragmatic and chest wall reconstruction using a bovine acellular dermal matrix: an analysis versus synthetic meshes

OBJECTIVES

Recently, biologic meshes have gained increasing popularity in soft tissue reconstruction. The aim of this study was to investigate the use of a bovine acellular dermal matrix (SurgiMend, Integra LifeSciences, Princeton, NJ, USA) in diaphragmatic and chest wall reconstruction by comparing it with synthetic meshes.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent diaphragmatic and/or chest wall reconstruction at a single center from 2016 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Outcome measures included surgical site complications, readmission, and reoperation.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients underwent diaphragmatic and/or chest wall reconstruction for a malignant (74.2%) or benign (25.8%) disease. SurgiMend was used in 26 (39.4%) patients and a synthetic mesh in 40 (60.6%) patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. Surgical site complications included prolonged air leak (12.1%), pleural effusion (9.1%), pneumothorax (3%), empyema (1.5%), and wound infection (1.5%). The patients in the synthetic mesh group developed a significantly higher rate of surgical site complications compared to those in the SurgiMend group (37.5% vs. 11.5%; p = 0.025). Similarly, the readmission rate was significantly higher in the synthetic mesh group (17.5% vs. 0%; p = 0.037), with causes including pleural effusion (n = 3), pneumothorax (n = 2), empyema (n = 1), and pneumonia (n = 1). Among the study cohort, only 1 patient with a synthetic mesh underwent reoperation (p > 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of surgiMend in diaphragmatic and chest wall reconstruction is associated with fewer surgical site complications and readmissions compared to synthetic meshes.

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.

Slowly absorbable mesh versus standard care in the management of contaminated midline incisional hernia (COMpACT-BIO): a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial including a health economic evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Incisional hernia (IH) is the most frequent mid-term and long-term complication after midline laparotomy. The current standard treatment includes repair using a mesh. In a contaminated field, the use of a non-absorbable mesh increases the risk of surgical site infection and the costs. Slowly absorbable meshes are safe in contaminated fields, but no data have been reported regarding their long-term recurrence rate. COMpACT-BIO is a multicentre prospective randomised controlled phase III trial designed to compare the 3-year recurrence rate in patients undergoing contaminated IH repair with either a slowly absorbable mesh or standard care.

METHODS

In patients undergoing midline IH repair in a contaminated surgical field (grade III of the modified Ventral Hernia Working Group classification), the COMpACT-BIO study compares the use of a slowly absorbable mesh with that of conventional care according to standardised surgical procedures (primary closure, non-absorbable synthetic mesh or biologic mesh, at the discretion of the surgeon). Randomisation is done during surgery before closure the fascia with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The choice of the slowly absorbable mesh is left to the criteria of each centre. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with scan-confirmed IH recurrence within 3 years after repair.

ETHICS/DISSEMINATION

This trial is conducted in compliance with international standards for research practice and reporting. Written informed consent will be obtained from patients prior to inclusion. All data were identified and anonymised prior to analysis. The protocol has been approved by an Institutional Review Board (2020-A0823-36/SI:20.07.03.66831), and will be conducted in compliance with the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented to patients and healthcare professionals.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Version 2-13 October 2020.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04597840.

An Evaluation of the Evidence Guiding Adult Midline Ventral Hernia Repair

Purpose:  Several guidelines have been published in recent years to guide the clinician in ventral hernia repair. This review distils this advice, critically assesses their evidence base, and proposes avenues for future study. Methods:  A PUBMED search identified four guidelines addressing midline ventral hernia repair published by major surgical societies between 2016 and 2020. The studies used to inform the advice have been critically appraised, including 20 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, 10 randomized controlled trials, 32 cohort studies, and 14 case series. Results:  Despite a lack of randomized controlled trials, case heterogeneity, and variation in outcome reporting, key themes have emerged. Preoperative computed tomography scan assesses defect size, loss of domain, and the likely need for component separation. Prehabilitation, frailty assessment, and risk stratification are beneficial in complex cases. Minimally invasive component separation techniques, Botox injection, and progressive pneumoperitoneum represent novel techniques to promote closure of large fascial defects. Rives-Stoppa sublay mesh repair has become the "gold" standard for open and minimally invasive repairs. Laparoscopic repair promotes early return to functional status. The enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal approach facilitates laparoscopic sublay mesh placement, avoiding mesh contact with viscera. Robotic techniques continue to evolve, although the evidence at present remains immature. Synthetic mesh is recommended for use in clean and clean-contaminated cases. However, optimism regarding the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in the contaminated setting has waned. Conclusions:  Surgical techniques in ventral hernia repair have advanced in recent years. High-quality data has struggled to keep pace; rigorous clinical trials are required to support the surgical innovation.

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.

Resorbable Synthetic Ventral Hernia Repair in Contaminated Fields: Outcomes with Poly-4-Hydroxybutyrate Mesh

BACKGROUND

Hernia repair in the setting of contamination poses unique challenges, including complications such as recurrence and mesh infection. The ideal contaminated hernia repair including type of mesh use remains controversial. Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate is a biosynthetic scaffold for soft-tissue reinforcement and hernia repair and is potentially useful in contaminated hernia repair. The authors aim to describe postoperative outcomes, recurrence, and patient-reported outcomes after contaminated hernia repair with poly-4-hydroxybutyrate.

METHODS

Adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing a contaminated hernia repair with poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (Phasix) performed by a single plastic surgeon between January of 2015 and May of 2020 were identified. Patients with a ventral hernia defect and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wound class of II, III, or IV were included. Primary outcomes included recurrence, surgical-site infection, surgical-site occurrences, and surgical-site infection/occurrences requiring procedural interventions. As a secondary outcome, the authors assessed patient-reported outcomes as defined by the Abdominal Hernia-Q and Hernia-Related Quality of Life Survey.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included with a median age of 52.5 and body mass index of 31 kg/m2. Median defect size was 300 cm2. Twenty-eight patients (46.7 percent) experienced a complication. The most common complications were surgical-site occurrence [n = 20 (33.3 percent)] and surgical-site infection [n = 10 (16.7 percent)]. Median follow-up was 24.2 months, with a recurrence rate of 8.3 percent (n = 4). Overall patient-reported outcomes improved postoperatively, and improvement was not affected by the presence of a complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Poly-4-hydroxybutyrateuse in contaminated hernia repair shows promising results with an acceptable safety profile. Although complications are frequent in this complex cohort, patient-reported outcomes improvement was significant even in patients with complications.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Outcomes of biosynthetic absorbable mesh use in high risk CDC Class I ventral hernia repair: a single surgeon series

PURPOSE

Biosynthetic absorbable meshes have emerged as suitable alternatives to permanent synthetic and biologic meshes in complex ventral hernia repair in contaminated wounds. Evidence regarding the use of these products in clean wounds is currently scant. This paper presents a large single surgeon series using GORE^®BIO-A^® (W.L. Gore & Associates, Newark, DE) (Bio-A) tissue reinforcement in high risk patients with predominantly CDC Class I wounds.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive patients who underwent open ventral hernia repair with biosynthetic absorbable mesh was conducted. Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) classification based on patient demographics and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) wound type were collected prospectively. All patients were followed up for a minimum of 12 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

155 patients were included with a mean post-operative follow up of 29 months (range 12-62 months). Mean age was 61.8 years with an average BMI of 33.5 kg/m². 147 patients (94.9%) were classified as VHWG 2 or 3 based on comorbidities or surgical field contamination. 69% (n = 107) of wounds were designated CDC Class I. Mean hernia size was 119.7cm² with recurrent defects comprising 32.3% (n = 50). Retrorectus mesh repair was achieved in 84.5% of patients (n  = 131). Post-operative wound events occurred in 19.3%. No mesh was explanted. Hernia recurrence rate was 9.0% with a mean time to recurrence of 14 months. There was no significant difference in recurrence rates between clean and contaminated wounds.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the use of Bio-A in high risk ventral hernias, demonstrating a safe and durable repair across all wound classes. Ongoing follow-up continues to monitor for late complications and recurrence.

Outcomes of mid-term and long-term degradable biosynthetic meshes in single-stage open complex abdominal wall reconstruction

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical outcomes in patients that underwent open single-stage complex abdominal wall reconstruction (CAWR) with biosynthetic mesh.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study of two prospectively registered series of consecutive patients undergoing CAWR with either long-term degradable (LTD) Phasix^™ or mid-term degradable (MTD) BIO-A^® biosynthetic mesh in a single institution between June 2016 and December 2019.

RESULTS

From 169 patients with CAWR, 70 consecutive patients were identified who underwent CAWR with either LTD or MTD biosynthetic mesh. More than 85% of patients had an incisional hernia that could be classified as moderately complex to major complex due to a previous wound infection (67%), one or more complicating comorbidities (87.1%), one or more complicating hernia characteristics (75.7%) or contaminated or dirty defects (37.1%). Concomitant component separation was performed in 43 of 70 patients (61.4%). Overall surgical site infection (SSI) rate in these CAWR patients was 45.7%. Seventeen of 70 patients (24.3%) had computed tomography (CT) - and culture-confirmed SSI in direct contact of mesh, suspicious of mesh infection. Mesh removal for persistent local infection occurred in 10% (7 of 70) after a median of 229 days since surgery. Salvage rate of mesh after direct contact with infection was 58.8%. All removed meshes were in the LTD group. Seven patients (10%) had a recurrence; four patients in the LTD group (10%) had a recurrence at a median follow-up of 35 months and three patients in the MTD group (10%) at a median follow-up of 11 months. Three of the seven recurrences occurred in patients with SSI in persistent and direct contact with mesh.

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbid patients undergoing open complex abdominal wall reconstruction are at high risk of postoperative wound complications regardless of which type of biosynthetic mesh is used. When in persistent and direct contact with infection, long-term biodegradable biosynthetic meshes may need to be removed, whereas mid-term biodegradable biosynthetic meshes can be salvaged.

Different etiopathogeneses in early-onset and late-onset inguinal hernia mesh infections in a prospectively evaluated cohort

INTRODUCTION

Inguinal hernia mesh infection (IHMI) is a rare but a significant problem. The aim of this study was to determine whether etiopathogeneses of early-onset and late-onset IHMIs differ in terms of the origin of infectious agents, and route of dissemination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study with prospective data collection of patients operated on from 2013 to 2015. Early-onset IHMI was defined as symptoms developed within one year after the index surgery, whereas late-onset IHMI was defined as infection developed later than a year after the index surgery. Age, gender, ASA score, BMI, time from index surgery, isolated infectious agents and possible pathogeneses were analyzed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1438 patients underwent inguinal hernia repair. Sixteen patients (1.1%) had IHMI, of whom nine were early-onset and seven late-onset. The groups were comparable for age (p = .54), gender (p = 1.0), BMI (p = .79), and ASA score (p = 1.0). The most common infectious agent in early-onset IHMI was St. aureus, whereas Enterococci and Enterobacter prevailed in late-onset IHMI. The possible pathogenesis of IHMI in seven patients with early-onset IHMI was primary exogenous infection, whereas in patients with late-onset IHMI the pathogenesis might be hematogenous or contact spread. All patients with IHMI underwent mesh removal. In two patients (one from each group), partial mesh removal was performed previously and IHMI recurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Early-onset hernia mesh infection is mostly caused by St. aureus through exogenous contamination, whereas its late-onset counterpart might be a result of hematogenous or contact spread of intestinal flora.

Leveraging a statewide quality collaborative to understand population-level hernia care

BACKGROUND

Although ventral hernia repair (VHR) is extremely common, there is profound variation in operative technique and outcomes. This study describes the results of a statewide registry capturing hernia-specific variables to understand population-level practice patterns.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of adult patients in a new statewide hernia registry undergoing VHR in 2020.

RESULTS

919 patients underwent VHR across 57 hospitals and 279 surgeons. Hernia width was <2 cm in 233 (25%) patients, 2-5 cm in 420 (46%) patients, 5-10 cm in 171 (19%) patients, and >10 cm in 95 (10%) patients. Mesh was used in 79% of cases and varied in use from 53% of hernias <2 cm to 95% of hernias >10 cm. The most common mesh type was synthetic non-absorbable (46%), followed by synthetic absorbable mesh (37%). The incidence of complications was significantly associated with hernia width.

CONCLUSIONS

A population-level, hernia-specific database captured operative details for 919 patients in 1 year. There was significant variation in mesh use and outcomes based on hernia size. These nuanced data may inform higher quality clinical practice.

Observational Cohort Study on the Use of a Slowly Fully Resorbable Synthetic Mesh (Phasix™) in the Treatment of Complex Abdominal Wall Pathology with Different Grades of Contamination

PURPOSE

Abdominal wall hernia repair in contaminated cases remains a therapeutic challenge due to the high risk of post-operative surgical site occurrences (SSO). Slowly resorbable synthetic (biosynthetic) meshes have recently been introduced and may offer unique advantages when challenged with bacterial colonization during abdominal wall reconstruction.

METHODS

A multicenter single-arm retrospective observational cohort study examined all consecutive patients in whom a poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh (Phasix™ or Phasix™ ST; Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) was used for the repair of an inguinal or ventral/incisional hernia, or to replace an infected synthetic mesh. Patient records were analyzed according to the level of contamination, using the classification score of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary objective was to evaluate short-term postoperative morbidity by assessing SSOs and the need for reoperation or even mesh excision.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients were included. The median age was 68 years (30-87), the male/female ratio was 26/21, and the median BMI was 26.5 kg/m2 (16.4-46.8). There were 17 clean cases, 17 clean-contaminated, 6 contaminated and 7 dirty. Median follow-up time was 48 days. An SSO was seen in 4 clean (23.5%), 7 clean-contaminated (41.2%), 2 contaminated (33.3%) and 5 dirty cases (71.4%). A surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI) was seen in 2 clean (11.8%), 3 clean-contaminated (17.6%), 1 contaminated (16.7%) and 2 dirty cases (28.6%). Hernia recurrence was seen in 1 clean (5.9%), 2 clean-contaminated (11.8%) and 3 dirty cases (42.9%). Mesh excision had to be performed in only one case in the contaminated group.

CONCLUSION

The Phasix™ mesh shows promising short-term results when used in contaminated hernia-related surgery. Even in contaminated or dirty conditions, with or without infection of the mesh, resection of the mesh only had to be performed once and patients could be managed either conservatively or by relatively minor reoperations. However, further research is needed to fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of these meshes.

Surgical site infection in mesh repair for ventral hernia in contaminated field: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Given the risk of surgical site infection (SSI), the use of mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repair (VHR) is not standardized and still a clinical dilemma. This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether mesh use increased the risk of SSI in patients following VHR in contaminated field.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published literature. Studies comparing the mesh repair and anatomic repair, the use of mesh in different Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) wound classes and mesh repair with synthetic mesh or other type of meshes to treat complicated and contaminated VHR were considered for analysis. The main outcome was SSI incidence.

RESULTS

Six studies compared mesh and suture repairs. No significant difference in SSI incidence was observed between patients with complicated VHR in the mesh and suture repair groups.Five studies analyzed mesh repair in patients by field contamination level. There was no significant difference between the use of mesh in clean-contaminated, contaminated and dirty field versus clean wound class. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the use of mesh in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases.Four studies compared mesh repair technique with synthetic mesh or other type of meshes were included. The incidence of SSI was significantly lower in the synthetic mesh group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of mesh repair in the management of complicated VHR compared to suture repair is not associated with an increased incidence of SSI even in potentially contaminated fields.

Infectious Complication in Relation to the Prophylactic Mesh Position: The PRIMA Trial Revisited

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement has proven to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia (IH). Fear of infectious complications may withhold the widespread implementation of prophylactic mesh reinforcement, particularly in the onlay position.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients scheduled for elective midline surgery were randomly assigned to a suture closure group, onlay mesh group, or sublay mesh group. The incidence, treatment, and outcomes of patients with infectious complications were assessed through examining the adverse event forms. Data were collected prospectively for 2 years after the index procedure.

RESULTS

Overall, infectious complications occurred in 14/107 (13.3%) patients in the suture group and in 52/373 (13.9%) patients with prophylactic mesh reinforcement (p = 0.821). Infectious complications occurred in 17.6% of the onlay group and 10.3% of the sublay group (p = 0.042). Excluding anastomotic leakage as a cause, these incidences were 16% (onlay) and 9.7% (sublay), p = 0.073. The mesh could remain in-situ in 40/52 (77%) patients with an infectious complication. The 2-year IH incidence after onlay mesh reinforcement was 10 in 33 (30.3%) with infectious complications and 15 in 140 (9.7%) without infectious complications (p = 0.003). This difference was not statistically significant for the sublay group.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh placement was not associated with increased incidence, severity, or need for invasive treatment of infectious complications compared with suture closure. Patients with onlay mesh reinforcement and an infectious complication had a significantly higher risk of developing an incisional hernia, compared with those in the sublay group.

Bioabsorbable mesh use in midline abdominal wall prophylaxis and repair achieving fascial closure: a cross-sectional review of stage of innovation

BACKGROUND

Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterise the stage of innovation for bioabsorbable mesh devices used during both midline closure prophylaxis and complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence.

METHODS

A systematic review of published and ongoing studies was performed until 31st December 2019. Inclusion criteria were studies where bioabsorbable mesh was used to support fascial closure either prophylactically after midline laparotomy or for repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. Exclusion criteria were: (1) study design was a systematic review, meta-analysis, letter, review, comment, or conference abstract; (2) included less than p patients; (3) only evaluated biological, synthetic or composite meshes. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) criteria for study quality.

RESULTS

Twelve studies including 1287 patients were included. Three studies considered mesh prophylaxis and nine studies considered hernia repair. There were only two published studies of IDEAL 2B. The remainder was IDEAL 2A studies. The quality of the evidence was categorised as having a risk of bias of a moderate, serious or critical level in nine of the twelve included studies using the ROBINS-I tool.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for bioabsorbable mesh is limited. Better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although new trial results over the next decade will improve the evidence base, more trials in emergency and contaminated settings are required to establish the limits of indication.

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

PURPOSE

The use of mesh in ventral hernia repair becomes especially challenging when associated with a contaminated field. Permanent synthetic mesh use in this setting is currently debated and this discussion is yet to be resolved clinically or in the literature. We aim to systematically assess postoperative outcomes of non-absorbable synthetic mesh (NASM) used in ventral hernia repair in the setting of contamination.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cinahl, and Cochrane Library identified all articles from 2000-2020 that examined the use of NASM for ventral hernia repair in a contaminated field. Postoperative outcomes were assessed by means of pooled analysis and meta-analysis. Qualitative analysis was completed for all included studies using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Of 630 distinct publications and 104 requiring full review, this study included 17 articles published between 2007 and 2020. Meta-analysis demonstrated absorbable mesh was associated with more HR (OR 1.89, 1.15-3.12, p = 0.008), SSO (OR 1.43, 0.96-2.11, p = 0.087), SSI (OR 2.84, 1.85-4.35, p < 0.001), and unplanned reoperation (OR 1.99, 1.19-3.32, p = 0.009) compared to NASM.

CONCLUSION

The use of NASM for ventral hernia repair in a contaminated field may be a safe alternative to absorbable mesh, as evidenced by lower rates of postoperative complications. This review counters the current clinical paradigm, and additional prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Outcomes of Poly-4-hydroxybutyrate Mesh in Ventral Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

Within the past decade, poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) biosynthetic mesh has been introduced as a potential alternative to traditional biologic and synthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair (VHR). The aim of this study was to systematically assess clinical outcomes with the P4HB in VHR.

Methods

A literature search identified all articles published in 2000 involving the use of P4HB in VHR. Descriptive statistics were used to synthesize collective data points, including postoperative outcomes. A pooled analysis of postoperative outcomes was performed using chi-square test and Fisher exact test.

Results

Across 7 studies, the P4HB was used in 453 patients. The mean rate of surgical site infection (SSI) was 6.8% (31/453), reoperation 10.7% (30/281), and recurrence 9.1% (41/453). At an average follow-up of 26.8 months, the incidence of recurrence was 10.4% (28/270). Onlay was significantly associated with increased recurrence (14.2% versus 4.4%, P = 0.001). Among sublay placements, there was no difference in recurrence in clean (Center for Disease Control [CDC] 1) or contaminated (CDC >1) wounds (2.7% versus 6.1%, P = 0.585), but contaminated wounds were associated with increased SSI (2.7% versus 15.2%, P = 0.028). Ventral Hernia Working Group grade 2 and 3 did not have different incidences of recurrence (8.0% versus 5.1%, P = 0.526) nor SSI (5.1% versus 14.6%, P = 0.265).

Conclusions

Overall, clinical outcomes of the P4HB mesh in VHR are acceptable. The P4HB mesh serves as a reliable alternative to traditional synthetic and biologic mesh across a range of defect characteristics and patient health conditions. Further research is needed to better understand the conditions in which it may provide a clinical benefit over traditional mesh types.

Surgical Site Infection: The Scourge of Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a well-recognized and potentially catastrophic complication of abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). The authors present a review of the literature surrounding SSI in AWR, exploring prevention and treatment strategies as well as risk factors. Methods: A comprehensive review of the current literature was undertaken. Evidence was reviewed and summarized with particular focus on prevention and treatment strategies available to hernia surgeons. Results: Patient risk factors for SSI are well described in the literature and include obesity, smoking, and other comorbidities. Contaminated hernias and cases involving enterocutaneous fistulae are also at higher risk of SSI. Surgical decisions such as type of mesh, plane of mesh placement, and fascial release may all contribute to SSI risk. To treat established mesh infection, conservative management with antibiotic agents and negative pressure therapy is a reasonable option in some cases. Removal of prosthesis appears to provide favorable results, however, repeat surgery can be problematic Conclusions: Surgical site infection remains an important pathology in the world of AWR. Surgeons have a wealth of tools in their arsenal to prevent and treat SSI and should be aware of the emerging evidence in the fast-moving specialty of hernia surgery. Complex cases should be handled by surgeons and centers with expertise in treating such patients.

A novel biosynthetic scaffold mesh reinforcement affords the lowest hernia recurrence in the highest-risk patients

INTRODUCTION

Patients with higher postoperative infection risk undergoing ventral hernia repair (VHR) have limited options for mesh use. Biosynthetic mesh is intended to utilize the durability of synthetic mesh combined with the biocompatibility of biologic mesh. We sought to assess the outcomes of a novel biosynthetic scaffold mesh for VHR in higher risk patients over a 12-month postoperative period.

METHODS

Two cohorts of 50 consecutive patients who underwent VHR with TELA Bio OviTex biosynthetic or synthetic mesh were retrospectively compared. Endpoints included surgical site occurrence (SSO), readmission rate, and hernia recurrence following VHR at 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

OviTex mesh placement was associated with higher risk Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) distribution and more contaminated CDC wound class distribution compared to synthetic mesh placement (VHWG grade 3: 68% vs. 6%, p < 0.001; CDC class > I: 70% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). Additionally, concomitant procedures were performed more often with OviTex mesh placement than synthetic mesh placement (70% vs 10%, p < 0.001). The OviTex mesh performed comparably to synthetic mesh in terms of incidences of SSO (36% vs 22%, p = 0.19), readmission rates (24% vs 14%, p = 0.31), and hernia recurrence (6% vs 12%, p = 0.74). On further evaluation, patients who developed SSO with OviTex mesh (n = 18) had a 17% hernia recurrence whereas those with synthetic mesh (n = 11) had an associated 55% hernia recurrence (p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

The OviTex biosynthetic mesh was used in higher risk patients and performed similarly to synthetic mesh in regards to rate of SSO, readmissions, and hernia recurrence. Furthermore, patients who developed SSO with Ovitex mesh were significantly less likely to have hernia recurrence than those with synthetic mesh. Overall, the data suggest that biosynthetic mesh is a more desirable option for definitive hernia repair in higher risk patients.

Use of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) meshes for ventral hernia repair in emergency surgery

PURPOSE

The implantation of non-absorbable meshes is the gold standard technique for ventral hernia (VH) repairs. However, emergency surgeries are often related to contaminated/infected fields, where the implantation of prosthetic materials may not be recommendable. Our aim was to evaluate the results of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) meshes used for contaminated and/or complicated VH repairs in the acute setting.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with VH who underwent emergency surgery involving PVDF meshes, in a tertiary hospital (from November 2013 to September 2019). We analyzed postoperative complications and 1-year recurrence rates. We evaluated the relationships between contamination grade, mesh placement, infectious complications, and recurrences.

RESULTS

We gathered data on 123 patients; their mean age was 62.3 years, their mean BMI was 31.1 kg/m², and their mean CeDAR index was 51.6. 96.4% of patients had a grade 2-3 ventral hernia according to the Rosen index. The mean defect width was 8 cm (IQR 2-18). 93 cases (75.6%) were described as contaminated or dirty surgeries. A PVDF mesh was placed using an IPOM technique in 56.3% of cases, and via interposition location in 39.9%. The one-month recurrence rate was 5.7% and recurrence after one year was 19.1%. The overall mortality rate was 27.6%. Risk of recurrence was related to patients with a Rosen score over 2 (p < 0.001), as well as with postoperative SSI (p = 0.045). Higher recurrence rates were not related to PVDF mesh placement.

CONCLUSION

The use of PVDF meshes for emergency VH repairs in contaminated surgeries seems safe and useful, with reasonable recurrence rates, and acceptable infectious complication rates, similar to those published in the literature.

Clinically available reinforcing materials for soft tissue reconstruction

Navigating the rapidly evolving field of materials for soft tissue reinforcement is challenging given the volume of clinically available options. Additionally, the current generally accepted classifications of these mesh materials confound the understanding of their utility by grouping disparate materials that have attributes overlapping category boundaries and that do not fully consider their clinically functionality. This review article highlights, from a materials science perspective, the most important attributes of these materials to improve the clinical decision-making process in the selection of the most appropriate features and design for the patient, surgery and clinical need. These characteristics include the physical attributes that directly impact the surgical procedure and immediate postoperative mechanical requirements as well as the post-implantation properties such as an adequate reinforcement time, strength of the resulting tissue and infection risk profile.

Mesh fistula after ventral hernia repair: What is the optimal management?

BACKGROUND

A mesh-related intestinal fistula is an uncommon and challenging complication of ventral hernia repair. Optimal management is unclear owing to lack of prospective or long-term data.

METHODS

We reviewed our prospective data for mesh-related intestinal fistulas from 2004 to 2017and compared suture repair versus ventral hernia repair with mesh at the time of mesh-related intestinal fistula takedown.

RESULTS

Eighty-two mesh-related intestinal fistulas were treated; none of the fistulas had closed spontaneously, and all fistula persisted at the time of our treatment. Mean age was 61 ± 12 years with 33-month follow-up. Comorbidities were similar between groups. Defects were 2.5-times larger in ventral hernia repair with mesh (324 ± 392 cm² vs 1301 ± 133 cm²; P = .044). Components separation (64% vs 21%; P = .0003) and panniculectomy (35% vs 7%; P = .0074) were more common in ventral hernia repair with mesh. Mortality occurred in 4 patients. Complications were similar. In patients undergoing ventral hernia repair with non-bridged, acellular, porcine dermal matrix, hernia recurrence was less than in patients without mesh (26% vs 66%; P = .0030). Only partial excision of the mesh involved with the fistula resulted in a substantial increase in developing another fistula (29% vs 6%; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing preperitoneal ventral hernia repair with mesh for mesh-related intestinal fistula had a lesser rate of hernia recurrence and similar complications compared to suture repair despite larger hernias. Complete mesh excision decreases the risk of fistula recurrence. We maintain that ventral hernia repair with mesh during mesh-related intestinal fistula takedown represents the best opportunity for a durable herniorrhaphy.

Comparison of biosynthetic versus synthetic mesh in clean and contaminated ventral hernia repairs

BACKGROUND

Abdominal hernias are an increasingly common presentation due to obesity, ageing and prevalence of prior abdominal surgery. Mesh repair is the mainstay of treatment; however, mesh selection remains largely subjective. There are little data available to assess the performance of biosynthetic meshes against synthetic meshes across all wound types. This study assessed the 6-month outcomes of a single surgeon's cohort of ventral hernia repairs performed with either GORE BIO-A (BioA) or Parietex ProGrip (ProGrip).

METHODS

Retrospective case cohort study across two centres with patients undergoing repair by a single surgeon (KS) between January 2014 and April 2018 was conducted. All hernia repairs were performed with either BioA (n = 55) or ProGrip mesh (n = 60). Outcomes were monitored for 6 months post repair. Wounds were classified according to the Centre for Disease Control Wound Status. Outcomes measured were length of stay, general complications, wound complications and hernia recurrence.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate and length of stay were similar for both groups. In clean wounds, the complication rate was equivalent for BioA and ProGrip (34% versus 22%, P = 0.22). There was a significant difference in complication rates in contaminated wounds - BioA 17% versus ProGrip 100% (P = 0.004). BioA performed equivocally in clean and contaminated wounds (34% versus 17%, P = 0.178), whereas ProGrip performed worse in contaminated wounds (22% versus 100%, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that BioA is a suitable, if not preferable, choice for contaminated hernia repair. In this cohort, BioA was also demonstrated as safe and equivalent to ProGrip mesh in clean hernia wounds.

Biodegradable hyaluronan hydrogel coatings on acellular dermis grafts-A potential strategy to improve biologic graft durability in hernia repair application

Biologic grafts used in hernia repair undergo rapid cellular infiltration and remodeling, but their premature degradation often results in hernia recurrence. We hypothesize that a temporary barrier that prevents infiltration of acute inflammatory cells into the graft during the initial 4 weeks of implantation could mitigate graft degradation. The purpose of this study is to design tyramine-substituted hyaluronan (THA) hydrogel coatings with tunable degradation properties, as a means to develop a resorbable barrier for human acellular dermis grafts (HADM). THA plugs prepared at different cross-linking densities, by varying cross-linking agent concentration (0.0001-0.0075% H₂ O₂ ), demonstrated varying rates of in vitro degradation (25 U/mL hyaluronidase, 48 h). Based on these results, HADM grafts were coated with THA at three cross-linking densities (0.0001%, 0.00075%, and 0.003% H₂ O₂ ) and THA coating degradation was evaluated in vitro (25 U/mL hyaluronidase, 48 h) and in vivo (rat intraperitoneal implantation, 1-4 weeks). THA coatings degraded in vitro and in vivo with the lowest cross-linking density (0.0001% H₂ O₂ ), generally showing greater degradation as evidenced by significant decrease in coating cross-sectional area. However, all three coatings remained partially degraded after 4 weeks of in vivo implantation. Alternate strategies to accelerate in vivo degradation of THA coatings are required to allow investigation of the study hypothesis. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 107B:2664-2672, 2019.

A Current Review of Long-Acting Resorbable Meshes in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

Concern for chronic infection of a permanent synthetic material in contaminated and "high risk" ventral hernia repairs has led to the development and dissemination of slowly resorbable biosynthetic materials at a lower cost compared with biologic mesh counterparts. Here, we review the preclinical and clinical data available for each long-acting resorbable mesh, with a candid comparison to biologic and synthetic equivalents.

Immunosuppression is not a risk factor for 30-day wound events or additional 30-day morbidity or mortality after open ventral hernia repair: An analysis of the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative

BACKGROUND

Some form of immunosuppression is relatively common in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair. Nevertheless, the association of immunosuppression with 30-day wound events and additional outcomes of morbidity and mortality remains unknown. The purpose of our study was to investigate the association of immunosuppression with 30-day wound events and additional morbidity and mortality after ventral hernia repair by evaluating the database of the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative.

METHODS

All patients undergoing open, elective, incisional ventral hernia surgery from July 2013 through April 2017 were identified within the database of the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative. Patients on immunosuppression within the 3 months before operative intervention were compared with patients not on immunosuppression with respect to the incidence of 30-day wound events, using a 1:5 propensity matched analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 3,537 patients met inclusion criteria; 200 (5.7%) patients were on some form of immunosuppression at the time of ventral hernia repair. After propensity matching, 1,200 patients remained for analysis; 200 (16.7%) patients were in the immunosuppression group. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to the incidence of 30-day surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention, or additional 30-day morbidity or mortality outcomes. Patients in the immunosuppression group had a greater rate of surgical site occurrences, the majority of which were seromas (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Immunosuppression is associated with an increased risk of 30-day surgical site occurrence but not surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence requiring procedural intervention, or additional 30-day morbidity or mortality. Additional studies are needed to determine the clinical importance of these surgical site occurrences with respect to long-term durability of the hernia repair.

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION

Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations.

METHODS

A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used.

RESULTS

The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.