Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Maximizing mesh mileage: evaluating the long-term performance of a novel hybrid mesh for ventral hernia repair

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety and long-term outcomes of GORE Synecor™ in ventral hernia repair (VHR).

Methods

This retrospective, single-center case review analyzed outcomes in patients who underwent VHR with Synecor from May 2016 to December 2022. Primary outcomes were hernia recurrence and mesh infection rates. Secondary outcomes were 30-day morbidity, 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, re-operation, surgical-site infection (SSI) and occurrence (SSO) rates, and occurrences requiring intervention (SSOI).

Results

278 patients were identified. Mean follow-up was 24.1 (0.2–87.1) months. Mean hernia defect size was 63.4 (± 77.2) cm2. Overall hernia recurrence and mesh infection rates were 5.0% and 1.4% respectively. No mesh infections required full explantation. We report the following overall rates: 13.3% 30-day morbidity, 4.7% 30-day readmission, 2.9% re-operation, 7.2% SSI, 6.1% SSO, and 2.9% SSOI. 30-day morbidity was significantly higher in non-clean (42.1% vs 11.2%, p < 0.01), onlay (OL) mesh (37.0% vs preperitoneal (PP) 16.4%, p = 0.05 vs retrorectus (RR) 15.0%, p < 0.05 vs intraperitoneal (IP) 5.2%, p < 0.001), and open cases (23.5% vs 3.1% laparoscopic vs 4.4% robotic, p < 0.01). SSI rates were significantly higher in non-clean (31.6% vs 5.4%, p < 0.001), OL mesh (29.6% vs RR 11.3%, p < 0.05 vs PP 5.5%, p < 0.01 vs IP 0.0%, p < 0.001), and open cases (15.2% vs 0% laparoscopic vs 0% robotic, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Long-term performance of a novel hybrid mesh in VHR demonstrates a low recurrence rate and favorable safety profile in various defect sizes and mesh placement locations.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data presented in this study is available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Kohler A, Lavanchy JL, Lenoir U, Kurmann A, Candinas D, Beldi G (2019) Effectiveness of prophylactic intraperitoneal mesh implantation for prevention of incisional hernia in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery. JAMA Surg 154(2):109–115. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bedewi MA, El-Sharkawy MS, Al Boukai AA, Al-Nakshabandi N (2012) Prevalence of adult paraumbilical hernia. Assessment by high-resolution sonography: a hospital-based study. Hernia 16(1):59–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0863-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sneiders D, Yurtkap Y, Kroese LF, Kleinrensink G, Lange JF, Gillion JF (2019) Risk factors for incarceration in patients with primary abdominal wall and incisional hernias: a prospective study in 4472 patients. World J Surg 43(8):1906–1913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-04989-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Luijendijk RW, Hop WCJ, van den Tol MP et al (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. NEJM 343(6):392–398. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200008103430603

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burger JWA, Luijendijk RW, Hop WCJ, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EGG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240(4):578–585. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000141193.08524.e7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Sauerland S, Schmedt CG, Lein S, Leibl BJ, Bittner R (2005) Primary incisional hernia repair with or without polypropylene mesh: a report on 384 patients with 5-year follow-up. Langenbecks Arch Surg 390(5):408–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-005-0567-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Khansa I, Janis JE (2019) The 4 principles of complex abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg - Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000002549

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. López-Cano M, Martin-Dominguez LA, Pereira JA, Armengol-Carrasco M, García-Alamino JM (2018) Balancing mesh-related complications and benefits in primary ventral and incisional hernia surgery. A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. PLoS ONE 13(6):e0197813. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197813

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Mathes T, Walgenbach M, Siegel R (2016) Suture versus mesh repair in primary and incisional ventral hernias: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg 40(4):826–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3311-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nguyen MT, Berger RL, Hicks SC, Davila JA, Li LT, Kao LS, Liang MK (2014) Comparison of outcomes of synthetic mesh vs suture repair of elective primary ventral herniorrhaphy. JAMA Surg 149(5):415. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.5014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. FitzGerald JF, Kumar AS (2014) Biologic versus synthetic mesh reinforcement: what are the pros and cons? Clin Colon Rectal Surg 27(04):140–148. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1394155

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Baylón K, Rodríguez-Camarillo P, Elías-Zúñiga A, Díaz-Elizondo JA, Gilkerson R, Lozano K (2017) Past, present and future of surgical meshes: a review. Membr (Basel) 7(3):47. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes7030047

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lake SP, Stoikes NFN, Badhwar A, Deeken CR (2019) Contamination of hybrid hernia meshes compared to bioresorbable Phasix™ Mesh in a rabbit subcutaneous implant inoculation model. Ann Med Surg 46:12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2019.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Reid CM, Jacobsen GR (2018) A current review of hybrid meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 142(3S):92S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004860

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rios-Diaz AJ, Hitchner M, Christopher AN, Broach R, Cunning JR, Fischer JP (2021) Early clinical and patient-reported outcomes of a new hybrid mesh for incisional hernia repair. J Surg Res 265:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.03.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Parikh RS, Faulkner JD, Bilezikian JA, Hooks WB, Hope WW (2021) A short-term preliminary evaluation of ventral hernia repair using a new prosthetic mesh. Int J Abdom Wall Hernia Surg 4(3):90. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijawhs.ijawhs_48_20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Linn JG, Mallico EJ, Doerhoff CR, Grantham DW, Washington RG (2023) Evaluation of long-term performance of an intraperitoneal biomaterial in the treatment of ventral hernias. Surg Endosc 37(5):3455–3462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09803-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kao AM, Arnold MR, Augenstein VA, Heniford BT (2018) Prevention and treatment strategies for mesh infection in abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 142(3S):149S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004871

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Whitehead-Clarke T, Windsor A (2021) Surgical site infection: the scourge of abdominal wall reconstruction. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 22(4):357–362. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2020.325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pande T, Naidu CS (2020) Mesh infection in cases of polypropylene mesh hernioplasty. Hernia 24(4):849–856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02142-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hodgkinson JD, Maeda Y, Leo CA, Warusavitarne J, Vaizey CJ (2017) Complex abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of active infection and contamination: a systematic review of hernia and fistula recurrence rates. Colorectal Dis 19(4):319–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Plymale MA, Davenport DL, Walsh-Blackmore S, Hess J, Griffiths WS, Plymale MC, Totten CF, Roth JS (2020) Costs and complications associated with infected mesh for ventral hernia repair. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 21(4):344–349. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2019.183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bachman S, Ramshaw B (2008) Prosthetic material in ventral hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Clin North Am 88(1):101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2007.11.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shankaran V, Weber DJ, Reed RL, Luchette FA (2011) A review of available prosthetics for ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg 253(1):16–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181f9b6e6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosen MJ, Bauer JJ, Harmaty M et al (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(1):205. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lindmark M, Löwenmark T, Strigård K, Gunnarsson U (2023) Ventral hernia repair with concurrent intra-abdominal surgery: Results from an eleven-year population-based cohort in Sweden. Am J Surg 226(3):360–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.06.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bittner JG, El-Hayek K, Strong AT, LaPinska MP, Yoo JS, Pauli EM, Kroh M (2018) First human use of hybrid synthetic/biologic mesh in ventral hernia repair: a multicenter trial. Surg Endosc 32(3):1123–1130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5715-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lewis R, Forman B, Preston M, Heidel E, Alvoid-Preston B, Ramshaw B (2022) The use of a novel synthetic resorbable scaffold (TIGR Matrix®) in a clinical quality improvement (CQI) effort for abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). Hernia 26(2):437–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02221-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Petro CC, Nahabet EH, Criss CN, Orenstein SB, von Recum HA, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2015) Central failures of lightweight monofilament polyester mesh causing hernia recurrence: a cautionary note. Hernia 19(1):155–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-014-1237-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cobb WS, Warren JA, Ewing JA, Burnikel A, Merchant M, Carbonell AM (2015) Open retromuscular mesh repair of complex incisional hernia: predictors of wound events and recurrence. JACS 220(4):606–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Maskal S, Miller B, Ellis R, Phillips S, Prabhu A, Beffa L, Krpata D, Rosenblatt S, Rosen M, Petro CC (2023) Mediumweight polypropylene mesh fractures after open retromuscular ventral hernia repair: incidence and associated risk factors. Surg Endosc 37(7):5438–5443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-10039-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang See C, Kim T, Zhu D (2020) Hernia mesh and hernia repair: a review. Eng Regeneration 1:19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engreg.2020.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhu LM, Schuster P, Klinge U (2015) Mesh implants: an overview of crucial mesh parameters. World J Gastrointest Surg 7(10):226–236. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v7.i10.226

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Conze J, Limberg W, Obolenski B, Ottinger AP, Schumpelick V (1998) Modified mesh for hernia repair that is adapted to the physiology of the abdominal wall. Eur J Surg 164(12):951–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/110241598750005138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sharbaugh ME, Patel PB, Zaman JA, Ata A, Feustel P, Singh K, Singh TP (2021) Robotic ventral hernia repair: a safe and durable approach. Hernia 25(2):305–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02074-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sugiyama G, Chivukula S, Chung PJ, Alfonso A (2015) Robot assisted transabdominal preperitoneal ventral hernia repair. JSLS 19(4):00092. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2015.00092

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding information to disclose for this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, University of California San Diego, 9300 Campus Point Dr, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA

    G. J. Spurzem, R. C. Broderick, J. Z. Li, B. J. Sandler, S. Horgan & G. R. Jacobsen

Authors
  1. G. J. Spurzem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. C. Broderick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Z. Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. J. Sandler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Horgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. R. Jacobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Jonathan Z Li, Ryan C Broderick, Garth R Jacobsen; Formal analysis and investigation: Graham J Spurzem, Jonathan Li; Writing—original draft preparation: Graham J Spurzem, Jonathan Z Li; Writing—review and editing: Graham J Spurzem, Ryan C Broderick, Santiago Horgan, Garth R Jacobsen; Supervision: Bryan J Sandler, Santiago Horgan, Garth R Jacobsen.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. J. Spurzem.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This retrospective case review study was approved by the University of California, San Diego Institutional Review Board.

Human and animal rights

This research study was conducted retrospectively from data obtained for clinical purposes. All procedures were performed as part of standard routine care. There were no procedures involving animals.

Informed consent

A waiver of informed consent was granted for this study by the University of California, San Diego Institutional Review Board.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Broderick is a consultant for Stryker Corporation. Dr. Sandler is a consultant for Intuitive Surgical and Boston Scientific. Dr. Horgan is a consultant for Stryker Corporation, Intuitive Surgical, Fortimedix Surgical, and Alume Biosciences. Dr. Jacobsen is a consultant for Gore Medical and Viacyte. Drs. Spurzem & Li have no disclosures.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spurzem, G.J., Broderick, R.C., Li, J.Z. et al. Maximizing mesh mileage: evaluating the long-term performance of a novel hybrid mesh for ventral hernia repair. Hernia (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-02995-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-02995-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation