Suppr超能文献

污染区域复杂腹壁缺损一期修复中合成材料与生物补片的对比研究

Synthetic versus Biologic Mesh in Single-Stage Repair of Complex Abdominal Wall Defects in a Contaminated Field.

作者信息

Chamieh Jad, Tan Wen Hui, Ramirez Ricardo, Nohra Eden, Apakama Chukwuma, Symons William

机构信息

Section of Acute and Critical Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine , St. Louis, Missouri.

出版信息

Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017 Feb/Mar;18(2):112-118. doi: 10.1089/sur.2016.106. Epub 2016 Oct 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Synthetic meshes have been used with varying rates of success in a contaminated setting, although their use is not widely accepted because of concerns for infection. A biologic mesh (BM) is assumed to be more resistant to infection than a synthetic mesh; however, sparse clinical data support this theory. The hypothesis for this study: Uncoated polypropylene synthetic mesh (USM) can be used to obtain a durable repair in the setting of a contaminated abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) in a single-stage procedure with comparable infectious outcomes to a biologic mesh repair.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review on contaminated AWR, comparing 34 BM with 24 USM with infection as the primary outcome of interest. Secondary outcomes were re-admission and re-operation. We also investigated the microbial isolates that were cultured.

RESULTS

Mesh groups were similar in their demographics, duration of surgery, previous mesh, surgical site class, and source of contamination. Length of stay was 4 d longer in BM, p = 0.01. Overall infection rate was 50% for BM vs. 29.2% for USM, p = 0.18. Treatment in case of infection was similar across both groups. Gram positive bacteria comprised 39% of BM microbiology vs. 63% for USM. Re-admission rate was 52.9% for BM versus 45.8% for USM, p > 0.5. The BMs re-admitted for surgical site infection/abdominal abscess were 38.9% versus 55.6% for USM. No USM were re-admitted for seroma versus 33.3% of BM, p = 0.06. Re-operation rate was 26.5% for BM versus 33.3% for USM, p > 0.5. Procedures performed at re-operation were similar between groups. Regression analysis did not demonstrate an association between mesh type and our outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that synthetic meshes are not inferior to biologic meshes in contaminated AWR. This is important in view of the tremendous cost disparity between these two products and the questionable ability of biologic mesh to offer a durable hernia repair.

摘要

背景

合成补片在污染环境中的使用成功率各不相同,尽管由于担心感染,其使用尚未被广泛接受。生物补片(BM)被认为比合成补片更能抵抗感染;然而,支持这一理论的临床数据很少。本研究的假设:未涂层聚丙烯合成补片(USM)可用于在污染的腹壁重建(AWR)中进行单阶段手术,以获得持久修复,其感染结局与生物补片修复相当。

患者和方法

我们对污染的AWR进行了回顾性病历审查,比较了34例生物补片与24例合成补片,将感染作为主要关注结局。次要结局为再次入院和再次手术。我们还调查了培养出的微生物分离株。

结果

补片组在人口统计学、手术持续时间、既往补片、手术部位分类和污染来源方面相似。生物补片组的住院时间长4天,p = 0.01。生物补片的总体感染率为50%,而合成补片为29.2%,p = 0.18。两组感染后的治疗相似。革兰氏阳性菌在生物补片微生物中占39%,而在合成补片中占63%。生物补片的再次入院率为52.9%,合成补片为45.8%,p>0.5。因手术部位感染/腹腔脓肿再次入院的生物补片为38.9%,合成补片为55.6%。合成补片无因血清肿再次入院的情况,而生物补片为33.3%,p = 0.06。生物补片的再次手术率为26.5%,合成补片为33.3%,p>0.5。两组再次手术时进行的手术相似。回归分析未显示补片类型与我们的结局之间存在关联。

结论

我们的结果表明,在污染的AWR中,合成补片并不劣于生物补片。鉴于这两种产品之间巨大的成本差异以及生物补片提供持久疝修补的能力存疑,这一点很重要。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验