Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic review of synthetic and biologic materials for abdominal wall reinforcement in contaminated fields

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Guidelines recommend the use of bioprosthetics for abdominal wall reinforcement in contaminated fields, but the evidence supporting the use of biologic over synthetic non-absorbable prosthetics for this indication is poor. Therefore, the objective was to perform a systematic review of outcomes after synthetic non-absorbable and biologic prosthetics for ventral hernia repair or prophylaxis in contaminated fields.

Methods

The systematic literature search identified all articles published up to 2013 that reported outcomes after abdominal wall reinforcement using synthetic non-absorbable or biologic prosthetics in contaminated fields. Studies were included if they included at least 10 cases (excluding inguinal and parastomal hernias). Quality assessment was performed using the MINORS instrument. The main outcomes measures were the incidence of wound infection and hernia at follow-up. Weighted pooled proportions were calculated using a random effects model.

Results

A total of 32 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for synthesis. Mean sample size was 41.4 (range 10–190), and duration of follow-up was >1 year in 72 % of studies. Overall quality was low (mean 6.2, range 1–12). Pooled wound infection rates were 31.6 % (95 % CI 14.5–48.7) with biologic and 6.4 % (95 % CI 3.4–9.4) with synthetic non-absorbable prosthetics in clean-contaminated cases, with similar hernia rates. In contaminated and/or dirty fields, wound infection rates were similar, but pooled hernia rates were 27.2 % (95 % CI 9.5–44.9) with biologic and 3.2 % (95 % CI 0.0–11.0) with synthetic non-absorbable. Other outcomes were comparable.

Conclusions

The available evidence is limited, but does not support the superiority of biologic over synthetic non-absorbable prosthetics in contaminated fields.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 

  2. Bachman S, Ramshaw B (2008) Prosthetic material in ventral hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Clin North Am 88:101–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Diaz JJ Jr, Conquest AM, Ferzoco SJ, Vargo D, Miller P, Wu YC, Donahue R (2009) Multi-institutional experience using human acellular dermal matrix for ventral hernia repair in a compromised surgical field. Arch Surg 144:209–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shah BC, Tiwari MM, Goede MR, Eichler MJ, Hollins RR, McBride CL, Thompson JS, Oleynikov D (2011) Not all biologics are equal! Hernia 15:165–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 

  7. Birolini C, Utiyama EM, Rodrigues AJ Jr, Birolini D (2000) Elective colonic operation and prosthetic repair of incisional hernia: does contamination contraindicate abdominal wall prosthesis use? J Am Coll Surg 191:366–372

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Geisler DJ, Reilly JC, Vaughan SG, Glennon EJ, Kondylis PD (2003) Safety and outcome of use of nonabsorbable mesh for repair of fascial defects in the presence of open bowel. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1118–1123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stremitzer S, Bachleitner-Hofmann T, Gradl B, Gruenbeck M, Bachleitner-Hofmann B, Mittlboeck M, Bergmann M (2010) Mesh graft infection following abdominal hernia repair: risk factor evaluation and strategies of mesh graft preservation. A retrospective analysis of 476 operations. World J Surg 34:1702–1709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cox DR (1970) The continuity correction. Biometrika 57:217–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Friedrich JO, Adhikari NK, Beyene J (2007) Inclusion of zero total event trials in meta-analyses maintains analytic consistency and incorporates all available data. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:5

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chan DL, Talbot ML, Chen Z, Kwon SC (2013) Simultaneous ventral hernia repair in bariatric surgery. ANZ J Surg. doi:10.1111/ans.12174

    Google Scholar 

  14. El-Gazzaz G, Erem HH, Aytac E, Salcedo L, Stocchi L, Kiran RP (2012) Risk of infection and hernia recurrence for patients undergoing ventral hernia repair with non-absorbable or biological mesh during open bowel procedures. Tech Coloproctol 17:315–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Xourafas D, Lipsitz SR, Negro P, Ashley SW, Tavakkolizadeh A (2010) Impact of mesh use on morbidity following ventral hernia repair with a simultaneous bowel resection. Arch Surg 145:739–744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. El-Gazzaz GH, Farag SH, El-Sayd MA, Mohamed HH (2012) The use of synthetic mesh in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair during colorectal resection: risk of infection and recurrence. Asian J Surg 35:149–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bellows CF, Albo D, Berger DH, Awad SS (2007) Abdominal wall repair using human acellular dermis. Am J Surg 194:192–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Llaguna OH, Avgerinos DV, Nagda P, Elfant D, Leitman IM, Goodman E (2011) Does prophylactic biologic mesh placement protect against the development of incisional hernia in high-risk patients? World J Surg 35:1651–1655

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ouellet JF, Ball CG, Kortbeek JB, Mack LA, Kirkpatrick AW (2012) Bioprosthetic mesh use for the problematic thoracoabdominal wall: outcomes in relation to contamination and infection. Am J Surg 203:594–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Patton JH Jr, Berry S, Kralovich KA (2007) Use of human acellular dermal matrix in complex and contaminated abdominal wall reconstructions. Am J Surg 193:360–363 discussion 363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Eid GM, Mattar SG, Hamad G, Cottam DR, Lord JL, Watson A, Dallal RM, Schauer PR (2004) Repair of ventral hernias in morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric bypass should not be deferred. Surg Endosc 18:207–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Franklin ME Jr, Trevino JM, Portillo G, Vela I, Glass JL, Gonzalez JJ (2008) The use of porcine small intestinal submucosa as a prosthetic material for laparoscopic hernia repair in infected and potentially contaminated fields: long-term follow-up. Surg Endosc 22:1941–1946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Helton WS, Fisichella PM, Berger R, Horgan S, Espat NJ, Abcarian H (2005) Short-term outcomes with small intestinal submucosa for ventral abdominal hernia. Arch Surg 140:549–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chavarriaga LF, Lin E, Losken A, Cook MW, Jeansonne LO, White BC, Sweeney JF, Galloway JR, Davis SS Jr (2010) Management of complex abdominal wall defects using acellular porcine dermal collagen. Am Surg 76:96–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Itani KM, Rosen M, Vargo D, Awad SS, Denoto F 3rd, Butler CE, RICH Study Group (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 

  26. Abo-Ryia MH, El-Khadrawy OH, Abd-Allah HS (2013) Prophylactic preperitoneal mesh placement in open bariatric surgery: a guard against incisional hernia development. Obes Surg 10:1571–1574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bessa SS, Abdel-Razek AH (2013) Results of prosthetic mesh repair in the emergency management of the acutely incarcerated and/or strangulated ventral hernias: a seven years study. Hernia 17:59–65

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Curro G, Centorrino T, Low V, Sarra G, Navarra G (2012) Long-term outcome with the prophylactic use of polypropylene mesh in morbidly obese patients undergoing biliopancreatic diversion. Obes Surg 22:279–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gutierrez de la Pena C, Medina Achirica C, Dominguez-Adame E, Medina Diez J (2003) Primary closure of laparotomies with high risk of incisional hernia using prosthetic material: analysis of usefulness. Hernia 7:134–136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Datta T, Eid G, Nahmias N, Dallal RM (2008) Management of ventral hernias during laparoscopic gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 4:754–757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Egun A, Hill J, MacLennan I, Pearson RC (2002) Preperitoneal approach to parastomal hernia with coexistent large incisional hernia. Colorectal Dis 4:132–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Herbert GS, Tausch TJ, Carter PL (2009) Prophylactic mesh to prevent incisional hernia: a note of caution. Am J Surg 197:595–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Liu DS, Banham E, Yellapu S (2013) Prophylactic mesh reinforcement reduces stomal site incisional hernia after ileostomy closure. World J Surg 9:2039–2045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Machairas A, Liakakos T, Patapis P, Petropoulos C, Tsapralis D, Misiakos EP (2008) Prosthetic repair of incisional hernia combined with elective bowel operation. Surgeon 6:274–277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Praveen Raj P, Senthilnathan P, Kumaravel R, Rajpandian S, Rajan PS, Anand Vijay N, Palanivelu C (2012) Concomitant laparoscopic ventral hernia mesh repair and bariatric surgery: a retrospective study from a tertiary care center. Obes Surg 22:685–689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schuster R, Curet MJ, Alami RS, Morton JM, Wren SM, Safadi BY (2006) Concurrent gastric bypass and repair of anterior abdominal wall hernias. Obes Surg 16:1205–1208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zafar H, Zaidi M, Qadir I, Memon AA (2012) Emergency incisional hernia repair: a difficult problem waiting for a solution. Ann Surg Innov Res 6:1

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kelly ME, Behrman SW (2002) The safety and efficacy of prosthetic hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated wounds. Am Surg 68:524–528

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kurmann A, Barnetta C, Candinas D, Beldi G (2013) Implantation of prophylactic nonabsorbable intraperitoneal mesh in patients with peritonitis is safe and feasible. World J Surg 7:1656–1660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fazio VW, O’Riordain MG, Lavery IC, Church JM, Lau P, Strong SA, Hull T (1999) Long-term functional outcome and quality of life after stapled restorative proctocolectomy. Ann Surg 230:575–584

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kanters AE, Krpata DM, Blatnik JA, Novitsky YM, Rosen MJ (2012) Modified hernia grading scale to stratify surgical site occurrence after open ventral hernia repairs. J Am Coll Surg 215:787–793

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bellows CF, Smith A, Malsbury J, Helton WS (2013) Repair of incisional hernias with biological prosthesis: a systematic review of current evidence. Am J Surg 205:85–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hiles M, Record Ritchie RD, Altizer AM (2009) Are biologic grafts effective for hernia repair? A systematic review of the literature. Surg Innov 16:26–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mavros MN, Athanasiou S, Alexiou VG, Mitsikostas PK, Peppas G, Falagas ME (2011) Risk factors for mesh-related infections after hernia repair surgery: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. World J Surg 35:2389–2398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Harth KC, Blatnik JA, Anderson JM, Jacobs MR, Zeinali F, Rosen MJ (2013) Effect of surgical wound classification on biologic graft performance in complex hernia repair: an experimental study. Surgery 153:481–492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bellows CF, Wheatley BM, Moroz K, Rosales SC, Morici LA (2011) The effect of bacterial infection on the biomechanical properties of biological mesh in a rat model. PLoS One 6:e21228

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Janfaza M, Martin M, Skinner R (2012) A preliminary comparison study of two noncrosslinked biologic meshes used in complex ventral hernia repairs. World J Surg 36:1760–1764

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Krpata DM, Blatnik JA, Novitsky YW, Rosen MJ (2013) Evaluation of high-risk, comorbid patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair with synthetic mesh. Surgery 153:120–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Brown RH, Subramanian A, Hwang CS, Chang S, Awad SS (2013) Comparison of infectious complications with synthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair. Am J Surg 205:182–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG (1992) CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control 20:271–274

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA (2008) CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 36:309–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Shankaran V, Weber DJ, Reed RL 2nd, Luchette FA (2011) A review of available prosthetics for ventral hernia repair. Ann Surg 253:16–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, van den Tol MP, de Lange DC, Braaksma MM, IJzermans JN, Boelhouwer RU, de Vries BC, Salu MK, Wereldsma JC, Bruijninckx CM, Jeekel J (2000) A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia. N Engl J Med 343:392–398

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Rosen MJ (2012) A prospective randomized trial of biologic mesh versus synthetic mesh for the repair of complex ventral hernias. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01746316. Accessed 5 May 2013

  55. Nocca D (2009) 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. http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01073072. Accessed 5 May 2013

  56. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR (1999) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 27:97–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

LL was supported by a scholarship from the Quebec Health Sciences Research Fund (FRQ-S) and the McGill Surgeon Scientist Program. The Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation is supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Covidien. GMF receives research and fellowship funding from Covidien and research support from Olympus. LSF receives research and fellowship funding from Covidien and research support from Ethicon. LL, JM, TL, KK, and MCV have no conflicts of interests to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally-Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, 1650 Cedar Ave, E19-125, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada

    Lawrence Lee, Juan Mata, Kosar A. Khwaja, Melina C. Vassiliou, Gerald M. Fried & Liane S. Feldman

  2. Montreal General Hospital Medical Library, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Tara Landry

Authors
  1. Lawrence Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan Mata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tara Landry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kosar A. Khwaja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Melina C. Vassiliou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gerald M. Fried
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Liane S. Feldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, L., Mata, J., Landry, T. et al. A systematic review of synthetic and biologic materials for abdominal wall reinforcement in contaminated fields. Surg Endosc 28, 2531–2546 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3499-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3499-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation