One year experience of swine dermal non-crosslinked collagen prostheses for abdominal wall repairs in elective and emergency surgery

A systematic review of outcome reporting in incisional hernia surgery

Background

The incidence of incisional hernia is up to 20 per cent after abdominal surgery. The management of patients with incisional hernia can be complex with an array of techniques and meshes available. Ensuring consistency in reporting outcomes across studies on incisional hernia is important and will enable appropriate interpretation, comparison and data synthesis across a range of clinical and operative treatment strategies.

Methods

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE (from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2019) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All studies documenting clinical and patient-reported outcomes for incisional hernia were included.

Results

In total, 1340 studies were screened, of which 92 were included, reporting outcomes on 12 292 patients undergoing incisional hernia repair. Eight broad-based outcome domains were identified, including patient and clinical demographics, hernia-related symptoms, hernia morphology, recurrent incisional hernia, operative variables, postoperative variables, follow-up and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical outcomes such as hernia recurrence rates were reported in 80 studies (87 per cent). A total of nine different definitions for detecting hernia recurrence were identified. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 31 studies (34 per cent), with 18 different assessment measures used.

Conclusions

This review demonstrates the significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting in incisional hernia studies, with significant variation in outcome assessment and definitions. This is coupled with significant under-reporting of patient-reported outcomes.

Long term comparative evaluation of two types of absorbable meshes in partial abdominal wall defects: an experimental study in rabbits

PURPOSE

Synthetic prosthetic materials that are fully absorbable seek to reduce the host foreign body reaction and promote host tissue regeneration. This preclinical trial was designed to analyse, in the long term, the behaviour of two prosthetic meshes, one synthetic and one composed of porcine collagen, in abdominal wall reconstruction.

METHODS

Partial defects were created in the abdominal walls of New Zealand rabbits and repaired using a synthetic absorbable mesh (Phasix™) or a non-crosslinked collagen bioprosthesis (Protexa™). After 3, 6, 12 and 18 months, specimens were recovered for light microscopy and collagen expression analysis to examine new host tissue incorporation, macrophage response and biomechanical strength.

RESULTS

Both materials showed good host tissue incorporation in line with their spatial structure. At 18 months postimplant, Protexa™ was highly reabsorbed while the biodegradation of Phasix™ was still incomplete. Collagenization of both materials was good. Macrophage counts steadily decreased over time in response to Phasix™, yet persisted in the collagen meshes. At 18 months, zones of loose tissue were observed at the implant site in the absence of herniation in both implant types. The stress-stretch behaviour of Phasix™ implants decreased over time, being more pronounced during the period of 12-18 months. Nevertheless, the abdominal wall repaired with Protexa™ became stiffer over time.

CONCLUSION

Eighteen months after the implant both materials showed good compatibility but the biodegradation of Phasix™ and Protexa™ was incomplete. No signs of hernia were observed at 18 months with the stress-stretch relations being similar for both implants, regardless of the more compliant abdominal wall repaired with Protexa™ at short term.

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.

Prevention of Incisional Hernias after Open Abdomen Treatment

Management of a patient with an open abdomen is difficult, and the primary closure of the fascial edges is essential to obtain the best patient outcome, regardless of the initial etiology of the open abdomen. The use of temporary abdominal closure devices is nowadays the gold standard to have the highest closure rates with mesh-mediated fascial traction as the proposed standard of care. However, the incidence of incisional hernias, although much more controlled than when leaving an abdomen open, is high and reaches up to 65%. As shown for other high-risk patient subgroups, such as obese patients, patients with an abdominal aneurysm, and patients with former -ostomy sites, the prevention of incisional hernias might be key to further optimize patient outcomes after open abdomen treatment. In this overview, current available modalities to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia are discussed. Most of these preventive options have been shown effective in giant ventral hernia repair and might work effectively in this patient cohort with open abdomen as well.

The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients: WSES guidelines

Damage control resuscitation may lead to postoperative intra-abdominal hypertension or abdominal compartment syndrome. These conditions may result in a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle leading to severe physiologic derangements and multiorgan failure unless interrupted by abdominal (surgical or other) decompression. Further, in some clinical situations, the abdomen cannot be closed due to the visceral edema, the inability to control the compelling source of infection or the necessity to re-explore (as a "planned second-look" laparotomy) or complete previously initiated damage control procedures or in cases of abdominal wall disruption. The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients has been proposed to be effective in preventing or treating deranged physiology in patients with severe injuries or critical illness when no other perceived options exist. Its use, however, remains controversial as it is resource consuming and represents a non-anatomic situation with the potential for severe adverse effects. Its use, therefore, should only be considered in patients who would most benefit from it. Abdominal fascia-to-fascia closure should be done as soon as the patient can physiologically tolerate it. All precautions to minimize complications should be implemented.

The role of open abdomen in non-trauma patient: WSES Consensus Paper

The open abdomen (OA) is defined as intentional decision to leave the fascial edges of the abdomen un-approximated after laparotomy (laparostomy). The abdominal contents are potentially exposed and therefore must be protected with a temporary coverage, which is referred to as temporal abdominal closure (TAC). OA use remains widely debated with many specific details deserving detailed assessment and clarification. To date, in patients with intra-abdominal emergencies, the OA has not been formally endorsed for routine utilization; although, utilization is seemingly increasing. Therefore, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS) and the Donegal Research Academy united a worldwide group of experts in an international consensus conference to review and thereafter propose the basis for evidence-directed utilization of OA management in non-trauma emergency surgery and critically ill patients. In addition to utilization recommendations, questions with insufficient evidence urgently requiring future study were identified.