Comparative study between biologic porcine dermal meshes: risk factors of postoperative morbidity and recurrence.

OBJECTIVE

Different types of biologic mesh have been introduced as an alternative to synthetic mesh for use in repairing contaminated ventral hernias because of their biocompatible nature. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent complex ventral hernia repairs with either non cross-linked or cross-linked porcine dermal meshes.

METHOD

This was retrospective analysis from a prospectively maintained database from January 2010 to May 2013. Patients undergoing open incisional hernia repair with a biologic mesh in the presence of a clean-contaminated, contaminated or dirty wound were reviewed.

RESULTS

There were 39 patients who underwent single-staged abdominal wall reconstruction for a contaminated ventral hernia with a biologic mesh. In 15 cases, non cross-linked mesh was used (Strattice, n=8; Protexa, n=1; XenMatrix, n=6); a cross-linked mesh was used in the remaining 24 cases (Permacol n=21; CollaMend n=3). The median follow-up was 11.9 ± 10.6 months. The overall morbidity was 71.8% (n=28), with 15.4% (n=6) for grade I, 23.1% (n=9) for grade II, 23.1% (n=9) for grade III (n=3 grade IIIA, n=6 grade IIIB), 7.7% (n=3) for grade IV and 2.6% (n=1) for grade V. In the cross-linked group, there were six complications directly linked to the biologic mesh, compared with three in the non-cross-linked group. Overall wound morbidity was 41.0% (n=16). There were 13 hernia recurrences (33.3%), and recurrence rate was not significantly different for both groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite the high rate of wound morbidity associated with the single-staged reconstruction of contaminated fields, it can be safely performed with biologic mesh reinforcement. Recurrence rate was not significantly different between cross-linked and non cross-linked porcine meshes.