Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective evaluation of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh in CDC class I/high-risk ventral and incisional hernia repair: 18-month follow-up

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Long-term resorbable mesh represents a promising technology for complex ventral and incisional hernia repair (VIHR). Preclinical studies indicate that poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB) resorbable mesh supports strength restoration of the abdominal wall. This study evaluated outcomes of high-risk subjects undergoing VIHR with P4HB mesh.

Methods

This was a prospective, multi-institutional study of subjects undergoing retrorectus or onlay VIHR. Inclusion criteria were CDC Class I, defect 10–350 cm2, ≤ 3 prior repairs, and ≥ 1 high-risk criteria (obesity (BMI: 30–40 kg/m2), active smoker, COPD, diabetes, immunosuppression, coronary artery disease, chronic corticosteroid use, hypoalbuminemia, advanced age, and renal insufficiency). Physical exam and/or quality of life surveys were performed at regular intervals through 18 months (to date) with longer-term, 36-month follow-up ongoing.

Results

One hundred and twenty-one subjects (46M, 75F) with an age of 54.7 ± 12.0 years and BMI of 32.2 ± 4.5 kg/m2 (mean ± SD), underwent VIHR. Comorbidities included the following: obesity (n = 95, 78.5%), hypertension (n = 72, 59.5%), cardiovascular disease (n = 42, 34.7%), diabetes (n = 40, 33.1%), COPD (n = 34, 28.1%), malignancy (n = 30, 24.8%), active smoker (n = 28, 23.1%), immunosuppression (n = 10, 8.3%), chronic corticosteroid use (n = 6, 5.0%), advanced age (n = 6, 5.0%), hypoalbuminemia (n = 3, 2.5%), and renal insufficiency (n = 1, 0.8%). Hernia types included the following: primary ventral (n = 17, 14%), primary incisional (n = 54, 45%), recurrent ventral (n = 15, 12%), and recurrent incisional hernia (n = 35, 29%). Defect and mesh size were 115.7 ± 80.6 and 580.9 ± 216.1 cm2 (mean ± SD), respectively. Repair types included the following: retrorectus (n = 43, 36%), retrorectus with additional myofascial release (n = 45, 37%), onlay (n = 24, 20%), and onlay with additional myofascial release (n = 8, 7%). 95 (79%) subjects completed 18-month follow-up to date. Postoperative wound infection, seroma requiring intervention, and hernia recurrence occurred in 11 (9%), 7 (6%), and 11 (9%) subjects, respectively.

Conclusions

High-risk VIHR with P4HB mesh demonstrated positive outcomes and low incidence of hernia recurrence at 18 months. Longer-term 36-month follow-up is ongoing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cox TC, Blair LJ, Huntington CR, Colavita PD, Prasad T, Lincourt AE, Heniford BT, Augenstein VA (2016) The cost of preventable comorbidities on wound complications in open ventral hernia repair. J Surg Res 206:214–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Finan KR, Vick CC, Kiefe CI, Neumayer L, Hawn MT (2005) Predictors of wound infection in ventral hernia repair. Am J Surg 190:676–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, Franz M, Hultman CS, Kilbridge JF, Rosen M, Silverman RP, Vargo D (2010) Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery 148:544–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jin J, Rosen MJ, Blatnik J, Mcgee MF, Williams CP, Marks J, Ponsky J (2007) Use of acellular dermal matrix for complicated ventral hernia repair: does technique affect outcomes? J Am Coll Surg 205:654–660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Itani KM, Rosen M, Vargo D, Awad SS, Denoto G 3rd, Butler CE, Group RS (2012) Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a biologic porcine tissue matrix: the RICH Study. Surgery 152:498–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H, Jorgensen LN, Bisgaard T (2013) Nationwide prospective study of outcomes after elective incisional hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 216:217–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosen M, Bauer J, Harmaty M, Carbonell AM, Cobb WS, Matthews BD, Goldblatt M, Selzer D, Poulose BK, Hansson BM, Rosman C, Chao J, Jacobsen G (2017) Multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study of the recurrence, surgical site infection, and quality of life after contaminated ventral hernia repair using biosynthetic absorbable mesh: the COBRA Study. Ann Surg 265:205–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bansal VK, Misra MC, Kumar S, Keerthi RY, Singhal P, Goswami A, Guleria S, Arora MK, Chabra A (2011) A prospective randomized study comparing suture mesh fixation versus tacker mesh fixation for laparoscopic repair of incisional and ventral hernias. Surg Endosc 25:1431–1438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reynvoet E, Deschepper E, Rogiers X, Troisi R, Berrevoet F (2014) Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: is there an optimal mesh fixation technique? A systematic review. Langenbecks Arch Surg 399:55–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B, Blatnik JA (2013) A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg 257:991–996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Primus FE, Harris HW (2013) A critical review of biologic mesh use in ventral hernia repairs under contaminated conditions. Hernia 17:21–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosen MJ (2010) Biologic mesh for abdominal wall reconstruction: a critical appraisal. Am Surg 76:1–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Slater NJ, Van Der Kolk M, Hendriks T, Van Goor H, Bleichrodt RP (2013) Biologic grafts for ventral hernia repair: a systematic review. Am J Surg 205:220–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Instructions for use - Phasix Mesh, C. R. Bard, Inc. (Warwick, RI). https://www.crbard.com/davol/product-listing/sp/phasix-mesh/. Accessed 13 July 2017

  15. Instructions for use - Gore Bio-A Tissue Reinforcement, W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (Flagstaff, AZ). https://www.goremedical.com/products/bioatissue---ifu/instructions?locale=mpd_euro. Accessed 13 July 2017

  16. Instructions for use - TIGR Matrix Surgical Mesh, Novus Scientific (Uppsala, Sweden). http://novusscientific.com/us/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/08/50192-PG-IFU-US-Rev02.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2017

  17. Instructions for use - SERI Surgical Scaffold, Allergen, Inc. (Irvine, CA). https://www.allergan.com/miscellaneous-pages/allergan-pdf-files/ifu_sclfd. Accessed 13 July 2017

  18. Instructions for use - Vicryl Mesh, Ethicon, Inc. (Somerville, NJ). https://hostedvl106.quosavl.com/qb/doc/52prsdf9irm418ak721jjffidc. Accessed 13 July 2017

  19. Jenkins ED, Yip M, Melman L, Frisella MM, Matthews BD (2010) Informed consent: cultural and religious issues associated with the use of allogeneic and xenogeneic mesh products. J Am Coll Surg 210:402–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Deeken CR, Matthews BD (2013) Characterization of the mechanical strength, resorption properties, and histologic characteristics of a fully absorbable material (poly-4-hydroxybutyrate-PHASIX Mesh) in a porcine model of hernia repair. ISRN Surg 2013:238067

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Martin DP, Badhwar A, Shah DV, Rizk S, Eldridge SN, Gagne DH, Ganatra A, Darois RE, Williams SF, Tai HC, Scott JR (2013) Characterization of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh for hernia repair applications. J Surg Res 184:766–773

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Scott JR, Deeken CR, Martindale RG, Rosen MJ (2016) Evaluation of a fully absorbable poly-4-hydroxybutyrate/absorbable barrier composite mesh in a porcine model of ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc 30:3691–3701

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Surgical Site Infection Event Protocol, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/9pscssicurrent.pdf. Accessed 2017

  24. Mangram A, Horan T, Pearson M, Silver L, Jarvis W (2014) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Am J Infect Control 20:250–280

    Google Scholar 

  25. Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kokotovic D, Bisgaard T, Helgstrand F (2016) Long-term recurrence and complications associated with elective incisional hernia repair. JAMA 316:1575–1582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Totten CF, Davenport DL, Ward ND, Roth JS (2016) Cost of ventral hernia repair using biologic or synthetic mesh. J Surg Res 203:459–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Roth JS, Zachem A, Plymale MA, Davenport DL (2017) Complex ventral hernia repair with acellular dermal matrices: clinical and quality of life outcomes. Am Surg 83:141–147

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chamieh J, Tan WH, Ramirez R, Nohra E, Apakama C, Symons W (2017) Synthetic versus biologic mesh in single-stage repair of complex abdominal wall defects in a contaminated field. Surg Infect 18:112–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Atema JJ, De Vries FE, Boermeester MA (2016) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the repair of potentially contaminated and contaminated abdominal wall defects. Am J Surg 212:982–995 e981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Carbonell AM, Criss CN, Cobb WS, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2013) Outcomes of synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 217:991–998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Plymale MA, Ragulojan R, Davenport DL, Roth JS (2017) Ventral and incisional hernia: the cost of comorbidities and complications. Surg Endosc 31:341–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was sponsored by C. R. Bard, Inc. (Davol), Warwick, RI.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, 800 Rose Street, #C225, Lexington, KY, 40536, USA

    John Scott Roth

  2. Department of Surgery, Methodist Health System, Omaha, NE, USA

    Gary J. Anthone

  3. Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Don J. Selzer

  4. Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Benjamin K. Poulose

  5. Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

    James G. Bittner

  6. Department of Surgery, New Hanover Regional Medical Center, Wilmington, NC, USA

    William W. Hope

  7. Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Worcester, Worcester, MA, USA

    Raymond M. Dunn

  8. Department of Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Robert G. Martindale

  9. Department of Surgery, The Medical College of Wisconsin, Inc., Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Matthew I. Goldblatt

  10. Department of Surgery, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA, USA

    David B. Earle & John. R. Romanelli

  11. Department of Surgery, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

    Gregory J. Mancini

  12. Department of Surgery, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Madison, WI, USA

    Jacob A. Greenberg

  13. Department of Surgery, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA

    John G. Linn

  14. Department of Surgery, Celebration Health, Celebration, FL, USA

    Eduardo Parra-Davila

  15. Department of Surgery, The Regents of the University of California, San Diego, CA, USA

    Bryan J. Sandler

  16. Covalent Bio, LLC, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Corey R. Deeken

  17. Department of Surgery, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA

    Guy R. Voeller

Authors
  1. John Scott Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary J. Anthone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Don J. Selzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Benjamin K. Poulose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James G. Bittner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. William W. Hope
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Raymond M. Dunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Robert G. Martindale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Matthew I. Goldblatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. David B. Earle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. John. R. Romanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Gregory J. Mancini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jacob A. Greenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. John G. Linn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Eduardo Parra-Davila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Bryan J. Sandler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Corey R. Deeken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Guy R. Voeller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Scott Roth.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Authors were reimbursed for expenses related to the conduct of the study. JSR, GJA, JGB, WWH, RGM, MIG, DBE, GJM, JAG, EPD, BJS, CRD, and GRV are paid consultants for C. R. Bard, Inc. (Davol). Poulose conflicts: Bard-Davol-research (pertains to this study); Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative-compensation; Ariste Medical-consulting; Pfizer-consulting. Deeken conflicts: Covalent Bio, LLC – Owner and Principal Consultant; Biom'Up – consulting; Colorado Therapeutics – consulting; C. R. Bard/Davol, Inc. – consulting (pertains to this study); Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation – paid Grant reviewer; Johnson & Johnson Medical GmbH – consulting; TELA Bio, Inc. – consulting.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roth, J.S., Anthone, G.J., Selzer, D.J. et al. Prospective evaluation of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh in CDC class I/high-risk ventral and incisional hernia repair: 18-month follow-up. Surg Endosc 32, 1929–1936 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5886-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5886-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation