Biologic mesh for repair of ventral hernias in contaminated fields: long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes

Comparison of short-term clinical efficacy and safety between biological and synthetic meshes in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: a single-center randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal choice of mesh material in laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair (LHHR) is debated. This study aimed to compare the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of biological versus synthetic meshes in LHHR.

METHODS

In a prospective, single-center randomized controlled trial conducted from January 2020 to December 2022, 124 patients undergoing LHHR were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the biological mesh group (n = 62) or the synthetic mesh group (n = 62). The biological mesh group received non-crosslinked biological mesh, while the synthetic mesh group received polypropylene anti-adhesion mesh for hiatal closure reinforcement. Randomization was computer-generated. Baseline characteristics were collected, and patients were followed up at 6, 12, and 18 months postoperatively through telephone interviews or outpatient visits. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate of hiatal hernia, assessed by gastroscopy and upper gastrointestinal contrast radiography. Secondary outcomes included symptom improvement evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire, as well as quality of life improvements. The safety of mesh was assessed by recording mesh-related complications.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. At 18 months, the recurrence rate was 1.92% in the synthetic mesh group and 9.26% in the biological mesh group (P = 0.225). At 6 months, the biological mesh group reported significantly less early satiety compared to the synthetic mesh group (0.35 ± 1.09 vs. 0.95 ± 1.99; P = 0.046). Conversely, at 18 months, early satiety was lower in the synthetic mesh group compared to the biological mesh group (0.31 ± 1.35 vs. 1.04 ± 2.21; P = 0.043). No significant differences were observed between the groups for other symptoms or SF-36 domains at any time point (all P > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvements in some symptoms and quality of life from preoperative to postoperative assessments (P < 0.05). No mesh-related complications were reported in either group throughout the 18-month follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Both biological and synthetic meshes are effective and safe for use in LHHR, demonstrating similar recurrence rates and improvements in symptoms and quality of life over an 18-month period. The choice of mesh may influence early satiety at different postoperative intervals, suggesting that individualized mesh selection based on patient-specific factors may enhance postoperative outcomes.

A Scoping Review of Quality-of-Life Assessments Employed in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons use several quality-of-life instruments to track outcomes following abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR); however, there is no universally agreed upon instrument. We review the instruments used in AWR and report their utilization trends within the literature.

METHODS

This scoping review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases. All published articles in the English language that employed a quality-of-life assessment for abdominal wall hernia repair were included. Studies which focused solely on aesthetic abdominoplasty, autologous breast reconstruction, rectus diastasis, pediatric patients, inguinal hernia, or femoral hernias were excluded.

RESULTS

Six hernia-specific tools and six generic health tools were identified. The Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life Survey and Carolinas Comfort Scale are the most common hernia-specific tools, while the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) is the most common generic health tool. Notably, the SF-36 is also the most widely used tool for AWR outcomes overall. Each tool captures a unique set of patient outcomes which ranges from abdominal wall functionality to mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of AWR have been widely studied with several different assessments proposed and used over the past few decades. These instruments allow for patient assessment of pain, quality of life, functional status, and mental health. Commonly used tools include the Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life Survey, Carolinas Comfort Scale, and SF-36. Due to the large heterogeneity of available instruments, future work may seek to determine or develop a standardized instrument for characterizing AWR outcomes.

Readmissions after emergent incisional ventral hernia repair: a retrospective review of the nationwide readmissions database

Emergent ventral hernia repair (eVHR) is associated with significant morbidity, yet there is no consensus regarding optimal surgical approach. We hypothesized that eVHR with synthetic mesh would have a higher readmission rate compared to primary eVHR or biologic mesh repair. Retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was conducted for patient entries between 2016 and 2018. Adult patients who underwent eVHR were included. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical techniques were compared between readmitted and non-readmitted patients. Predictors of readmission were assessed using multivariate analysis with propensity weighting for various eVHR techniques. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay and readmission diagnoses. 43,819 patients underwent eVHR; of the 22,732 with 6 months of follow-up, 6382 (28.1%) were readmitted. The majority of readmissions occurred within the first 30 days (51.8%). Over half of the readmissions were related to surgical complications (50.6%), the most common being superficial surgical site infection (30.1%) and bowel obstruction/ileus (12.2%). In the multivariate analysis, predictors of 30-day readmission included use of synthetic mesh (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.14), biologic mesh (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.49), and need for concomitant large bowel resection (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30-1.65). eVHR is associated with high rates of readmission. Primary repair had favorable odds for readmission and lower risk of surgical complications compared to synthetic and biologic mesh repairs. Synthetic repair had lower odds of readmission than biologic repair. Given the inherent limitations of the NRD, further institutional prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

Greatest Quality of Life Improvement in Patients With Large Ventral Hernias: An Individual Assessment of Items in the HerQLes Survey

BACKGROUND

Ventral hernia repair (VHR) has been shown to improve overall quality of life (QOL) by the validated 12-question Hernia-Related Quality-of-Life survey (HerQLes). However, which specific aspects of quality of life are most affected by VHR have not been formally investigated.

METHODS

Through retrospective analysis of the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative national database, we measured the change in each individual component of the HerQLes questionnaire from a pre-operative baseline assessment to one-year postoperatively in VHR patients.

RESULTS

In total, 1,875 VHR patients had completed both pre- and post-operative questionnaires from 2014-2018. They were predominately Caucasian (92.3%), 57.9 ± 12.4 Y old, and evenly gender split (50.5% male, 49.5% female, P = 0.31). Most operations were performed open (80.5%) with fewer laparoscopic (7.5%) or robotic cases (12.1%). For each of the 12 individual categories, improvement in QOL from baseline to 1-Y was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.0001). This held true with subgroup analysis of small (<2 cm), medium (2-6 cm), and large (>6 cm) hernias (P < 0.0001), though a larger improvement was seen in 8 of 12 components in hernias >6 cm (P < 0.001). Operative approach did not carry a significant effect except in medium hernias (2-6 cm), where an open approach saw a greater improvement in the "accomplish less at work" item (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

VHR is associated with improvement in each of the 12 components of QOL measured in the HerQLes questionnaire, regardless of the size of their hernia. The amount of improvement, however, may be dependent on hernia size and approach.

Platelet-rich plasma enhances mechanical strength of strattice in rat model of ventral hernia repair

Incisional hernia is a common complication of hernia repair despite the development of various synthetic and bio-synthetic repair materials. Poor long-term mechanical strength, leading to high recurrence rates, has limited the use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in ventral hernia repair (VHR). Biologically derived meshes have been an area of increasing interest. Still these materials bring the risk of more aggressive immune response and fibrosis in addition to the mechanical failures suffered by the synthetic materials. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), a growth-factor-rich autologous blood product, has been shown to improve early neovascularization, tissue deposition, and to decrease the rates of recurrence. Here, we demonstrate that PRP promotes the release of growth factors stromal derived factor (SDF)-1, transforming growth factor-beta, and platelet-derived growth factor in a dose-dependent manner. Additionally, we utilize an aortic ring angiogenesis assay to show that PRP promotes angiogenesis in vitro. A rat model of VHR using StratticeTM ADM demonstrates similar findings in vivo, corresponding with the increased expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and collagen type 1 alpha 1. Finally, we show that the molecular and cellular activity initiated by PRP results in an increased mechanical stiffness of the hernia repair mesh over time. Collectively, these data represent an essential step in demonstrating the utility and the mechanism of platelet-derived plasma in biomaterial-aided wound healing and provide promising preclinical data that suggest such materials may improve surgical outcomes.

Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate safety and efficacy of a mesh reinforcement following stoma reversal to prevent stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) and differences across the prostheses used.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until September 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and a network meta-analysis for a multiple comparison of the prostheses with each other were performed.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in the analysis (78.4% ileostomy and 21.6% colostomy) with a total of 1716 patients with (n = 684) or without (n = 1032) mesh. Mesh placement was associated with lower risk of SSIH (7.8%vs18.1%, OR0.266,95% CI 0.123-0.577, p < 0.001) than no mesh procedures but also with a longer operative time (SMD 0.941, 95% CI 0.462-1.421, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of Surgical Site infection (11.5% vs 11.1%, OR 1.074, 95% CI 0.78-1.48, p = 0.66), seroma formation (4.4% vs 7.1%, OR 1.052, 95% CI 0.64-1.73, p = 0.84), anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs 2.7%, OR 1.598, 95% CI 0.846-3.019, p = 0.149) and length of stay (SMD - 0.579,95% CI - 1.261 to 0.102, p = 0.096) between mesh and no mesh groups. Use of prosthesis was associated with a significant lower need for a reoperation than no mesh group (8.1% vs 12.1%, OR 0.332, 95% CI 0.119-0.930, p = 0.036). Incidence of seroma is lower with biologic than polypropylene meshes but they showed a trend towards poor results compared with polypropylene or biosynthetic meshes.

CONCLUSION

Despite longer operative time, mesh prophylactic reinforcement at the site of stoma seems a safe and effective procedure with lower incidence of SSIH, need for reoperation and comparable short-term outcomes than standard closure technique. A significant superiority of a specific mesh type was not identified.

Prospective study of single-stage repair of contaminated hernias with the novel use of calcium sulphate antibiotic beads in conjunction with biologic porcine submucosa tissue graft

SUMMARY

In single-stage hernia repair in the setting of contaminated fields there is a high rate of infection following mesh repair. New strategies to decrease infection in this challenging patient population are needed. Stimulan calcium sulfate antibiotic beads (CSAB) are a biodegradable material that deliver high concentrations of antibiotics locally to a site of insertion. Their use in the prevention of infection has not been described in hernia graft implantation. Here we describe our use of CSAB in a series of 11 patients with modified Ventral Hernia Working Group class III and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class II-IV wounds undergoing single-stage incisional ventral hernia repair. We found that implantation of CSAB in single-stage hernia repair in the setting of contaminated fields was feasible with low systemic antibiotic levels. Further research should be undertaken to investigate the efficacy of this novel tool in hernia repair.

The Abdominal Hernia-Q: Development, Psychometric Evaluation, and Prospective Testing

OBJECTIVE

Our study completes the development and estimates the psychometric properties of a novel, ventral hernia-specific patient reported outcomes (PRO) tool-the Abdominal Hernia-Q (AHQ).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

A standardized method for measuring hernia-related PRO has not been identified. There remains a need for a broadly applicable, hernia-specific tool that incorporates patient viewpoints and offers pre- and postoperative forms.

METHODS

Concept elicitation interviews, focus groups, and cognitive debriefing interviews were completed to define content. The preoperative AHQ was administered to patients scheduled to have a ventral hernia repair (VHR). The postoperative AHQ was administered to patients within 24 months post-VHR. The SF-12 and HerQLes were concurrently administered. Psychometric evaluation was performed. Subsequently, the AHQ (pre: 8 items; post: 16 items) underwent prospective testing.

RESULTS

Cross-sectional evaluations of patient responses to the AHQ (pre n = 104; post n = 261) demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach α pre = 0.86; post = 0.90) and moderate disattenuated correlations with the HerQLes (pre r = -0.71 and post r = -0.70) and the SF-12 domains (pre and post r ≥ 0.5 for 7 of 8 domains). Principal components analyses produced 2 factors preoperatively and 3 factors postoperatively. In prospective testing (n = 67), the AHQ scores replicated the cross-sectional psychometric results and suggested sensitivity to clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Through patient involvement and rigorous, iterative psychometric evaluation, we have produced substantial data to suggest the validity and reliability of AHQ scores in measuring hernia-specific PRO. The AHQ advances the clinical management and treatment of patients with abdominal hernias by providing a more complete understanding of patient-defined outcomes.

Single-stage repair of contaminated hernias using a novel antibiotic-impregnated biologic porcine submucosa tissue matrix

Background

Single-stage repair of incisional hernias in contaminated fields has a high rate of surgical site infection (30–42%) when biologic grafts are used for repair. In an attempt to decrease this risk, a novel graft incorporating gentamicin into a biologic extracellular matrix derived from porcine small intestine submucosa was developed.

Methods

This prospective, multicenter, single-arm observational study was designed to determine the incidence of surgical site infection following implantation of the device into surgical fields characterized as CDC Class II, III, or IV.

Results

Twenty-four patients were enrolled, with 42% contaminated and 25% dirty surgical fields. After 12 months, 5 patients experienced 6 surgical site infections (21%) with infection involving the graft in 2 patients (8%). No grafts were explanted.

Conclusions

The incorporation of gentamicin into a porcine-derived biologic graft can be achieved with no noted gentamicin toxicity and a low rate of device infection for patients undergoing single-stage repair of ventral hernia in contaminated settings.

Trial registration

The study was registered March 27, 2015 at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02401334.

Retromuscular Mesh Repair Using Fibrin Glue: Early Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness of an Evolving Technique

Background

Retromuscular hernia repairs (RHRs) decrease hernia recurrence and surgical site infections but can cause significant pain. We aimed to determine if pain and postoperative outcomes differed when comparing suture fixation (SF) of mesh to fibrin glue fixation (FGF).

Methods

Patients undergoing RHR (n = 87) between December 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017 were retrospectively identified. Patients received SF of mesh (n = 59, 67.8%) before the senior author changing his technique to FGF (n = 28, 32.2%). These 2 cohorts were matched (age, body mass index, number of prior repairs, mesh type, defect size, and wound class). Outcomes were analyzed using a matched pairs design with multivariable linear regression.

Results

Two matched groups (21 FGF and 21 SF) were analyzed (45.2% female, average age 56 years, average body mass index 34.7 kg/m², and average defect size 330 cm²). Statistical significance was observed for FGF compared with SF: length of stay (3.7 versus 7.1 days, P = 0.032), time with a drain (17.2 versus 27.5 days, P = 0.012), 30-day postoperative visits (2 versus 3, P = 0.003), pain scores (5.2 versus 3.1, P = 0.019) and activity within the first 24 hours (walking versus sitting, P = 0.002). Operative time decreased by 23.1 minutes (P = 0.352) and postoperative narcotic represcription (3 versus. 8 patients, p=0.147) also decreased. Average cost for patients receiving SF was $36,152 compared to $21,782 for FGF (P = 0.035).

Conclusions

Sutureless RHR using FGF may result in decreased pain when compared with a matched cohort receiving SF, translating to enhanced recovery time, shortened hospital stay, and decreased costs.

A biological or a synthetic mesh in immediate breast reconstruction? A cohort-study of long-term Health related Quality of Life (HrQoL)

OBJECTIVES

Meshes/matrices are commonly used in immediate breast reconstruction. There are few studies comparing biological and synthetic meshes and it is unknown what type of mesh gives the best long-term results. The aim of this study was to compare long-term health-related quality of life (HrQoL) and patient satisfaction in implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with a biological mesh (Surgisis^®) with that of patients reconstructed with a synthetic mesh (TIGR ^® Matrix Surgical Mesh).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Both cohorts were prospectively included and consecutively operated. Clinical data was collected. HrQoL was evaluated with EuroQoL-5 dimension - 3 levels questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Breast-Q.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Seventy-one patients were operated on in the biological group and 49 in the synthetic group. The response rates were 75 and 84 per cent, respectively. Mean follow-up time was 74 months and 23 months, respectively. There were no statistical differences in satisfaction and quality of life between the two groups. Complications and radiation seem to lead to a lower satisfaction. Our findings could indicate that biological and synthetic meshes give an equal long-term result as regards patients' perceived quality of life.

Measuring Success in Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: The Role of Validated Outcome Scales

BACKGROUND

Diminished quality of life (QOL) often drives patients to hernia repair, and patient-reported outcomes have gained importance in hernia research. Functional outcomes provide a patient-centered evaluation of a treatment, and improved QOL is a desired outcome assessing treatment effectiveness.

METHODS

Properties of validated QOL measure are reviewed and distinctions between generic and disease-specific measures are discussed. Based on a review of the literature, current validated outcome scales are evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

Currently, there is little agreement over the best means to measure QOL. As a result, several measures have been created, focusing on several distinct aspects of QOL. While generic measures provide global assessments, disease-specific measures report changes as they relate to the hernia itself and hernia surgery. With the introduction of new QOL measures, it is important to understand the properties of a good QOL measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Several questions remain unanswered regarding QOL, including which measures best assess hernia patients, what is the ideal time to evaluate QOL, and for how long postoperatively should QOL be measured. The introduction of guidelines to address these issues may enable improvement in value assessment.

Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure

Background

Achieving stable closure of complex or contaminated abdominal wall incisions remains challenging. This study aimed to characterize the stage of innovation for biological mesh devices used during complex abdominal wall reconstruction and to evaluate the quality of current evidence.

Methods

A systematic review was performed of published and ongoing studies between January 2000 and September 2017. Eligible studies were those where a biological mesh was used to support fascial closure, either prophylactically after midline laparotomy, or for reinforcement after repair of incisional hernia with midline incision. The primary outcome measure was the IDEAL framework stage of innovation. The key secondary outcome measure was the GRADE criteria for study quality.

Results

Thirty‐five studies including 2681 patients were included. Four studies considered mesh prophylaxis, 23 considered hernia repair, and eight reported on both. There was one published randomized trial (IDEAL stage 3), none of which was of high quality; the others were non‐randomized studies (IDEAL stage 2a). A detailed description of surgical technique was provided in most studies (27 of 35); however, no study reported outcomes according to the European Hernia Society consensus statement and only two described quality control of surgical technique during the study. From 21 ongoing randomized trials and observational studies, 11 considered repair of incisional hernia and 10 considered prophylaxis (seven in elective settings).

Conclusion

The evidence base for biological mesh is limited, and better reporting and quality control of surgical techniques are needed. Although results of ongoing trials over the next decade will improve the evidence base, further study is required in the emergency and contaminated settings.

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION

Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations.

METHODS

A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used.

RESULTS

The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.