Hernia

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 165–171

Not all biologics are equal!

Authors

  • B. C. Shah
    • Department of SurgeryUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center
  • M. M. Tiwari
    • Department of SurgeryUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center
  • M. R. Goede
    • Department of SurgeryUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center
  • M. J. Eichler
    • Department of SurgeryUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center
  • R. R. Hollins
    • Department of SurgeryUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center
  • C. L. McBride
    • Department of SurgeryUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center
  • J. S. Thompson
    • Department of SurgeryUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center
    • Department of SurgeryUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center
Original Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10029-010-0768-7

Cite this article as:
Shah, B.C., Tiwari, M.M., Goede, M.R. et al. Hernia (2011) 15: 165. doi:10.1007/s10029-010-0768-7

Abstract

Background

Although the efficacy of various biologic meshes in the abdominal reconstruction of complex ventral hernia has been shown, the performance profile of various biologic mesh scaffolds in terms of hernia-specific outcomes such as recurrence, mesh explantation, and mesh infections has not been examined.

Aim

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent complex ventral hernia repair with bioprosthetic material.

Methods

This study is a retrospective analysis of the use of bioprosthetic material in complex ventral hernia at an academic institution from January 2002 to December 2007.

Results

A total of 58 patients with a mean age of 57.2 years and mean body mass index (BMI) of 33.8 who underwent reconstruction of ventral abdominal defects with a bioprosthetic from January 2002 to February 2009 were included in the study. The study patients had about 4.8 previous surgeries and 43.1% of patients had reconstruction in a setting of enterocutaneous fistula, while 46.6% had a previous mesh infection. Complex ventral hernia was seen in 50 patients, while eight patients had ventral and parastomal hernia. The type of biologic used for reconstruction was human-derived (AlloDerm, 29), porcine cross-linked (CollaMend, 3; Permacol, 2), and non-cross-linked porcine (Surgisis, 16; Strattice, 8). At least one complication was seen in 72.4% of patients. Major complications noted were surgical wound infections (19.0%), seroma (8.6%), and abscess formation (5.2%). The one-year hernia recurrence rate was 27.9% and mesh explantation was needed in 17.2% of patients. AlloDerm was less likely to be explanted (13.8%) or become infected (37.9%) but more likely to recur (28.6%) compared to porcine cross-linked bioprosthesis. Porcine cross-linked biologics were more likely to become infected (60%) and explanted (40%) but less likely to recur (20%) compared to AlloDerm. Non-cross-linked porcine biologics were less likely to be explanted (16.7%) but had higher recurrence (29.4%) compared to cross-linked porcine biologics and a higher infection rate (54.2%) compared to AlloDerm.

Conclusions

The results from this study underscore the difficulty of repairing complex abdominal wall defects in contaminated fields. Cross-linked porcine biologics showed relatively higher infection and explantation rates. Equivalent recurrence and explantation rates were observed for the non-cross-linked porcine biologics and AlloDerm. These data indicate that there is currently no ideal biologic for complex ventral hernia repair.

Keywords

Bioprosthetic graftsVentral hernia repairCross-linked porcineHernia recurrenceMesh infectionSmall intestinal submucosaHuman cadaveric acellular dermisPorcine non-cross-linked dermisContaminated field

Abbreviations

IRB

Institutional review board

SD

Standard deviation

BMI

Body mass index

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010