Multicenter prospective randomized study comparing the technique of using a bovine pericardium biological prosthesis reinforcement in parietal herniorrhaphy (Tutomesh TUTOGEN) with simple parietal herniorrhaphy, in a potentially contaminated setting

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.

Mesh versus non-mesh for emergency groin hernia repair

BACKGROUND

A groin hernia is a collective name for inguinal and femoral hernias, which can present acutely with incarceration or strangulation of the hernia sac content, requiring emergency treatment. Timely repair of emergency groin hernias is crucial due to the risk of reduced blood supply and thus damage to the bowel, but the optimal surgical approach is unclear. While mesh repair is the standard treatment for elective hernia surgery, using mesh for emergency groin hernia repair remains controversial due to the risk of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of mesh compared with non-mesh in emergency groin hernia repair in adult patients with an inguinal or femoral hernia.

SEARCH METHODS

On 5 August 2022, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid, as well as two trial registers for ongoing and completed trials. Additionally, we performed forward and backward citation searches for the included trials and relevant review articles. We searched without any language or publication restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mesh with non-mesh repair in emergency groin hernia surgery in adults. We included any mesh and any non-mesh repairs. All studies fulfilling the study, participant, and intervention criteria were included irrespective of reported outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We based missing data analysis on best- and worst-case scenarios. For outcomes with sufficiently low heterogeneity, we performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model. We analysed subgroups when feasible, including the degree of contamination. We used RoB 2 for risk of bias assessment, and summarised the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials randomising 1241 participants undergoing emergency groin hernia surgery with either mesh (626 participants) or non-mesh hernia repair (615 participants). The studies were conducted in China, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most patients were men, and most participants had an inguinal hernia (41 participants had femoral hernias). The mean/median age in the mesh group ranged from 35 to 70 years, and from 41 to 69 years in the non-mesh group. All studies were performed in a hospital emergency setting (tertiary care) and lasted for 11 to 139 months, with a median study duration of 31 months. The majority of the studies only included participants with clean to clean-contaminated surgical fields. For all outcomes, we considered the certainty of the evidence to be very low, mainly downgraded due to high risk of bias (due to deviations from intended intervention and missing outcome data), indirectness, and imprecision. Mesh hernia repair may have no effect on or slightly increase the risk of 30-day surgical site infections (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.88; I² = 21%; 2 studies, 454 participants) when compared with non-mesh hernia repair, but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of mesh hernia repair compared with non-mesh hernia repair on 30-day mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.28; 1 study, 208 participants). In summary, the results showed 70 more (from 5 fewer to 200 more) surgical site infections and 29 more (from 32 fewer to 175 more) deaths within 30 days of mesh hernia repair per 1000 participants compared with non-mesh hernia repair. The evidence is very uncertain about 90-day surgical site infections after mesh versus non-mesh hernia repair (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.64; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No 30-day recurrences were recorded, and mesh hernia repair may not reduce recurrence within one year (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.03; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Within 30 days of hernia repair, no meshes were removed from clean to clean-contaminated fields, but 6.7% of meshes (1 study, 208 participants) were removed from contaminated to dirty surgical fields. Among the four studies reporting 90-day mesh removal, no events occurred. We were not able to identify any studies reporting complications classified according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification or reoperation for complications within 30 days of repair.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that in terms of 30-day surgical site infections, 30-day mortality, and hernia recurrence within one year, the evidence for the use of mesh hernia repair compared with non-mesh hernia repair in emergency groin hernia surgery is very uncertain. Unfortunately, firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to very low-certainty evidence and meta-analyses based on small-sized and low-quality studies. There is a need for future high-quality RCTs or high-quality registry-based studies if RCTs are unfeasible.

A Head to Head Comparison Between SurgiMend® - Fetal Bovine Acellular Dermal Matrix and Tutomesh® - A Bovine Pericardium Collagen Membrane in Breast Reconstruction in 45 Cases

BACKGROUND/AIM

The use of acellular dermal matrices (ADM) has become a widely used option in breast reconstruction. A great deal of literature is available, totaling over 3,200 ADM reconstructions. Head-to-head comparisons between SurgiMend® and Tutomesh® are not yet reported. These are the first comparative clinical data reported on the use of Tutomesh® in breast reconstruction. Postoperative complication rates and costs for these devices were evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a 2-year experience with both SurgiMend® - fetal bovine acellular dermal matrix and Tutomesh® - a bovine pericardium collagen membrane in breast reconstruction in 45 cases from 2014-2015.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients received a total of 45 implant-based reconstructions using SurgiMend® (18 cases; 40%) or Tutomesh® (27 cases; 60%). Gross complication rates were 27.8% for SurgiMend® and 37.0% for Tutomesh® including hematoma, postoperative skin irritation, infection, red breast syndrome and revision surgery. The most common complication was postoperative red breast syndrome. Severe complications requiring revision surgery did not differ significantly in patients treated with SurgiMend® (0 cases, 0%) compared to Tutomesh® (1 case, 3.7%).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective analysis shows similar overall clinical complication rates for Tutomesh® and SurgiMend®. Severe complication rates are comparable to those reported in literature for both products. Although the retrospective nature of this work limits its clinical impact, it is possible to opt for the cheaper alternative (Tutomesh®).

Xenograft biologic mesh in parietal and general surgery: Technical assessment and review of clinical effectiveness and safety data

STUDY AIM

To describe the main technical characteristics of biologic prostheses used for parietal reinforcement and to present the state of the art on their risk/benefit ratio.

METHODS

We conducted a technical analysis of manufacturer specifications of the biologic prostheses that are currently available in France accompanied by a literature review by selecting meta-analyses and systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and publications of health technology rating agencies.

RESULTS

Biological implants for parietal reinforcement are mainly intended for use in a contaminated environment where the use of synthetic prostheses is contra-indicated. We identified fourteen systematic reviews and meta-analyses and one randomized controlled trial. Six ongoing clinical trials were identified as well as two clinical trials that had been interrupted. In the current state of knowledge, there are no high-level evidence data on the therapeutic contribution of biologic prostheses that allow prioritization of the various biologic prostheses according to their characteristics or their different manufacturing processes.

CONCLUSION

Pending the results of current randomized controlled trials to validate the indications and an eventual specific reimbursement, indications for the use of biologic parietal reinforcement prostheses seems to be limited to rare clinical situations and only after collegial discussion.