Open Abdomen pp 247-256 | Cite as

Biological Prosthesis for Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

  • Marco CeresoliEmail author
  • Federico Coccolini
  • Luca Ansaloni
  • Massimo Sartelli
  • Giampiero Campanelli
  • Fausto Catena
Part of the Hot Topics in Acute Care Surgery and Trauma book series (HTACST)


  • No definitive evidences exist on the biological prosthesis in abdominal wall reconstruction after open abdomen; dedicated studies are needed.

  • Biological prosthesis seems to be a valid option for abdominal wall repair minimizing mesh-related complications, especially in contaminated surgical fields.

  • In managing great abdominal wall defects, the positioning of a biological prosthesis as a bridge to close the abdomen seems to be the best and most obvious solution to solve the acute problem.

  • Biological prosthesis seems to be associated with a high rate of hernia recurrence in long-term follow-up.


  1. 1.
    Miller RS, Morris JA, Diaz JJ, Herring MB, May AK. Complications after 344 damage-control open celiotomies. J Trauma. 2005;59(6):1365–74. Available from: Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leber GE, Garb JL, Alexander AI, Reed WP. Long-term complications associated with prosthetic repair of incisional hernias. Arch Surg. 1998;133(4):378–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mathes SJ, Steinwald PM, Foster RD, Hoffman WY, Anthony JP. Complex abdominal wall reconstruction: a comparison of flap and mesh closure. Ann Surg. 2000;232(4):586–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Quyn AJ, Johnston C, Hall D, Chambers A, Arapova N, Ogston S, et al. The open abdomen and temporary abdominal closure systems - historical evolution and systematic review. Color Dis. 2012;14(8):e429–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sartelli M, Coccolini F, van Ramshorst GH, Campanelli G, Mandalà V, Ansaloni L, et al. WSES guidelines for emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias. World J Emerg Surg. 2013;8(1):50. Available from: Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dinsmore RC, Calton WC, Harvey SB, Blaney MW. Prevention of adhesions to polypropylene mesh in a traumatized bowel model. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;191(2):131–6. Available from: Scholar
  7. 7.
    van’t Riet M, de Vos van Steenwijk PJ, Bonthuis F, Marquet RL, Steyerberg EW, Jeekel J, et al. Prevention of adhesion to prosthetic mesh: comparison of different barriers using an incisional hernia model. Ann Surg. 2003;237(1):123–8. Available from: Scholar
  8. 8.
    Konstantinovic ML, Lagae P, Zheng F, Verbeken EK, De Ridder D, Deprest JA. Comparison of host response to polypropylene and non-cross-linked porcine small intestine serosal-derived collagen implants in a rat model. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112(11):1554–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown GL, Richardson JD, Malangoni MA, Tobin GR, Ackerman D, Polk HC. Comparison of prosthetic materials for abdominal wall reconstruction in the presence of contamination and infection. Ann Surg. 1985;201(6):705–11. Available from: Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rasilainen SK, Juhani MP, Kalevi LA. Microbial colonization of open abdomen in critically ill surgical patients. World J Emerg Surg. 2015;10:25. Available from: Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stannard JP, Robinson JT, Anderson ER, McGwin G, Volgas DA, Alonso JE. Negative pressure wound therapy to treat hematomas and surgical incisions following high-energy trauma. J Trauma. 2006;60(6):1301–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andros G, Armstrong DG, Attinger CE, Boulton AJM, Frykberg RG, Joseph WS, et al. Consensus statement on negative pressure wound therapy (V.A.C. Therapy) for the management of diabetic foot wounds. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2006;(Suppl):1–32. Available from:
  13. 13.
    Cornwell KG, Landsman A, James KS. Extracellular matrix biomaterials for soft tissue repair. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2009;26:507–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bellows CF, Smith A, Hodde J, Hiles M. Tissue engineering in abdominal wall surgery. Minerva Chir. 2011;66(2):129–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Badylak SF. Xenogeneic extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue reconstruction. Transpl Immunol. 2004;12:367–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Winters JC. Inte Xen tissue processing and laboratory study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(Suppl. 7):34–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smart NJ, Bryan N, Hunt JA, Daniels IR. Porcine dermis implants in soft-tissue reconstruction: current status. Biol: Targets Ther. 2014;8:83–90.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Breuing K, Butler CE, Ferzoco S, Franz M, Hultman CS, Kilbridge JF, et al. Incisional ventral hernias: review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair. Surgery. 2010;148(3):544–58. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.surg.2010.01.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coccolini F, Agresta F, Bassi A, Catena F, Crovella F, Ferrara R, et al. Italian Biological Prosthesis Work-Group (IBPWG): proposal for a decisional model in using biological prosthesis. World J Emerg Surg. 2012;7(1):34. Available from: Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eriksson A, Rosenberg J, Bisgaard T. Surgical treatment for giant incisional hernia: a qualitative systematic review. Hernia. 2014;18(1):31–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chand B, Indeck M, Needleman B, Finnegan M, Van Sickle KR, Ystgaard B, et al. A retrospective study evaluating the use of Permacol™ surgical implant in incisional and ventral hernia repair. Int J Surg. 2014;12(4):296–303. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.01.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holihan JL, Nguyen DH, Nguyen MT, Mo J, Kao LS, Liang MK. Mesh location in open ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2015;40(1):89–99. Available from: doi:10.1007/s00268-015-3252-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petter-Puchner AH, Dietz UA. Biological implants in abdominal wall repair. Br J Surg. 2013;100(8):987–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Montori G, Coccolini F, Manfredi R, Ceresoli M, Campanati L, Magnone S, et al. One year experience of swine dermal non-crosslinked collagen prostheses for abdominal wall repairs in elective and emergency surgery. World J Emerg Surg. 2015;10(1):28. Available from: Scholar
  25. 25.
    Booth JH, Garvey PB, Baumann DP, Selber JC, Nguyen AT, Clemens MW, et al. Primary fascial closure with mesh reinforcement is superior to bridged mesh repair for abdominal wall reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(6):999–1009. Available from: Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abdelfatah MM, Rostambeigi N, Podgaetz E, Sarr MG. Long-term outcomes (>5-year follow-up) with porcine acellular dermal matrix (Permacol™) in incisional hernias at risk for infection. Hernia. 2015;19(1):135–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richmond B, Ubert A, Judhan R, King J, Harrah T, Dyer B, et al. Component separation with porcine acellular dermal reinforcement is superior to traditional bridged mesh repairs in the open repair of significant midline ventral hernia defects. Am Surg. 2014;80(8):725–31. Available from: Scholar
  28. 28.
    Primus FE, Harris HW. A critical review of biologic mesh use in ventral hernia repairs under contaminated conditions. Hernia. 2013;17:21–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gurrado A, Franco IF, Lissidini G, Greco G, De Fazio M, Pasculli A, et al. Impact of pericardium bovine patch (Tutomesh®) on incisional hernia treatment in contaminated or potentially contaminated fields: retrospective comparative study. Hernia. 2015;19(2):259–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Moya MA, Dunham M, Inaba K, Bahouth H, Alam HB, Sultan B, et al. Long-term outcome of acellular dermal matrix when used for large traumatic open abdomen. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care. 2008;65(2):349–53. Available from: Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ginting N, Tremblay L, Kortbeek JB. Surgisis® in the management of the complex abdominal wall in trauma: a case series and review of the literature. Injury. 2010;41(9):970–3. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.01.099.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Patton JH, Berry S, Kralovich KA. Use of human acellular dermal matrix in complex and contaminated abdominal wall reconstructions. Am J Surg. 2007;193(3):360–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maurice SM, Skeete DA. Use of human acellular dermal matrix for abdominal wall reconstructions. Am J Surg. 2009;197(1):35–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lin HJ, Spoerke N, Deveney C, Martindale R. Reconstruction of complex abdominal wall hernias using acellular human dermal matrix: a single institution experience. Am J Surg. 2009;197(5):599–603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Diaz JJ, Conquest AM, Ferzoco SJ, Vargo D, Miller P, Wu Y-C, et al. Multi-institutional experience using human acellular dermal matrix for ventral hernia repair in a compromised surgical field. Arch Surg. 2009;144(3):209–15. Available from: Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee EI, Chike-Obi CJ, Gonzalez P, Garza R, Leong M, Subramanian A, et al. Abdominal wall repair using human acellular dermal matrix: a follow-up study. Am J Surg. 2009;198(5):650–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pomahac B, Aflaki P. Use of a non-cross-linked porcine dermal scaffold in abdominal wall reconstruction. Am J Surg. 2010;199(1):22–7. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.12.033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Catena F, Ansaloni L, D’Alessandro L, Pinna A. Adverse effects of porcine small intestine submucosa (SIS) implants in experimental ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(4):690. Available from: Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, Gazzotti F, D’Alessandro L, Pinna AD. Inguinal hernia repair with porcine small intestine submucosa: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein’s repair with polypropylene mesh versus surgisis inguinal hernia matrix. Am J Surg. 2009;198(3):303–12. Available from: Scholar
  40. 40.
    Catena F, Ansaloni L, Di Saverio S, Cocccolini F, Vallicelli C, Lazzareschi D, et al. Use of porcine small intestine submucosa prostheses in contaminated hernia repair. ANZ J Surg. 2011;81(7–8):576–7. Available from: Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ansaloni L, Catena F, Gagliardi S, Gazzotti F, D’Alessandro L, Pinna AD. Hernia repair with porcine small-intestinal submucosa. Hernia. 2007;11(4):321–6. Available from: Scholar
  42. 42.
    Montori G, Coccolini F, Ceresoli M, Catena F, Colaianni N, Poletti E, et al. The treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis in advanced gastric cancer: state of the art. Int J Surg Oncol. 2014;2014:1–7. Available from: Scholar
  43. 43.
    Catena F, Ansaloni L, Leone A, De Cataldis A, Gagliardi S, Gazzotti F, et al. Lichtenstein repair of inguinal hernia with Surgisis inguinal hernia matrix soft-tissue graft in immunodepressed patients. Hernia. 2005;9(1):29–31. Available from: Scholar
  44. 44.
    Coccolini F, Catena F, Bertuzzo VR, Ercolani G, Pinna A, Ansaloni L. Abdominal wall defect repair with biological prosthesis in transplanted patients: single center retrospective analysis and review of the literature. Updat Surg. 2013;65(3):191–6. Available from: Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rosen MJ, Krpata DM, Ermlich B, Blatnik JA. A 5-year clinical experience with single-staged repairs of infected and contaminated abdominal wall defects utilizing biologic mesh. Ann Surg. 2013;257(6):991–6. Available from: Scholar
  46. 46.
    Beale EW, Hoxworth RE, Livingston EH, Trussler AP. The role of biologic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction: a systematic review of the current literature. Am J Surg. 2012;204(4):510–7. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.03.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bellows CF, Smith A, Malsbury J, Helton WS. Repair of incisional hernias with biological prosthesis: a systematic review of current evidence. Am J Surg. 2013;205(1):85–101. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.02.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sharrock AE, Barker T, Yuen HM, Rickard R, Tai N. Management and closure of the open abdomen after damage control laparotomy for trauma. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2015;47(2):296–306. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.09.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Atema JJ, de Vries FEE, Boermeester MA. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the repair of potentially contaminated and contaminated abdominal wall defects. Am J Surg. 2016:1–14. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.05.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Performance of biologic mesh materials in abdominal wall reconstruction - a randomized controlled trial. accessed 25 August 2016.
  51. 51.
    A prospective randomized trial of biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh for the repair of complex ventral hernias. accessed 25 August 2016.
  52. 52.
    Randomized control trial of biologic mesh (Xen MATRIXTM) vs. component separation alone in contaminated ventral hernia repair: a pilot study. accessed 25 August 2016.
  53. 53.
    A randomized, prospective, double blind clinical trial of non-cross-linked porcine dermis vs. bioabsorbable synthetic mesh for the repair of abdominal wall defects in at-risk patients. accessed 25 August 2016.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    PROPHYlactic Implantation of BIOlogic Mesh in Peritonitis (PROPHYBIOM). accessed 25 August 2016.
  55. 55.
    Prospective trial comparing the performance profiles of two non-cross-linked porcine dermal matrices in abdominal wall reconstruction. accessed 25 August 2016.
  56. 56.
    Use of biological mesh versus standard wound care in infected incisional ventral hernias: a multicenter randomized controlled trial, the SIMBIOSE Study. accessed 25 August 2016.
  57. 57.
    A prospective randomized trial of biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh for the repair of complex ventral hernias. accessed 25 August 2016.
  58. 58.
    Multicentric prospective randomized study comparing technique of tension-free repair with placement of a bovine pericardium bioprosthesis (Tutopatch® and Tutomesh®) to current conventional surgical techniques in potentially contaminated hernia repair and abdominal wall reconstruction. accessed 25 August 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Ceresoli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Federico Coccolini
    • 2
  • Luca Ansaloni
    • 2
  • Massimo Sartelli
    • 3
  • Giampiero Campanelli
    • 4
  • Fausto Catena
    • 5
  1. 1.Unit of General and Emergency SurgeryPapa Giovanni XXIII HospitalBergamoItaly
  2. 2.General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery DepartmentBufalini HospitalCesenaItaly
  3. 3.Unit of General and Emergency SurgeryMacerata HospitalMacerataItaly
  4. 4.Unit of General Surgery - Day SurgeryIstituto Clinico Sant’AmbrogioMilanoItaly
  5. 5.Unit of General and Emergency SurgeryParma University HospitalParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations