A comparison of patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal wall repair with either synthetic or biosynthetic mesh: a pilot study.

PURPOSE

Repair of midline ventral incisional hernias (VIHR) requires mesh reinforcement. Mesh types can be categorised into synthetic, biosynthetic, or biological. There is a lack of evidence to support one type of mesh over another. The aim of this pilot study was to compare mesh sensation in patients having undergone elective open repair with synthetic or biosynthetic mesh.

METHODS

Four years of prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed on 40 patients who had undergone VIHR, using either biosynthetic or synthetic mesh placed in the retromuscular plane. The decision on type of mesh used was governed by patient characteristics. Patients were invited to complete the Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) questionnaire, the higher the score indicating a poorer quality of life. The maximum length of follow-up was 36 months.

RESULTS

Twenty patients received permanent synthetic and 20 biosynthetic mesh. There was no clinical evidence of hernia recurrence in either group in the short to medium term. Overall, 97% (39/40) patients reported an average of either no or mild symptoms (mean CCS score 17.9 of 115). Patients with a biosynthetic repair had a significant lower CCS at ≥ 18 months (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

After VIHR, patients have low CCS scores, indicating good quality of life outcomes, in the short to medium term irrespective of the mesh used. However, biosynthetic mesh had lower CCS scores in the medium term. This may help surgeons and patients make better informed decisions about which mesh to use in their individual circumstances.