Outcomes of synthetic and biologic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction: A propensity-matched analysis in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 1 and 2 wounds.

INTRODUCTION

The choice of biologic compared with synthetic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction remains controversial, especially in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 1 and 2 wounds. This study evaluated wound complications and hernia recurrence with a 2:1 propensity-matched sample and extended follow-up.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

A prospectively maintained abdominal wall reconstruction database was queried for patients undergoing open abdominal wall reconstruction using biologic or synthetic mesh in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 1 and 2 wounds. Patients receiving synthetic or biologic mesh were propensity score matched in a 2:1 fashion. Univariate, bivariate, and inferential analyses were conducted. Unless stated, data are reported as biologic compared with synthetic.

RESULTS

In total, 519 patients were compared, 173 with biologic and 346 with synthetic mesh. Defect size (215.2 ± 153.6 cm vs 251.5 ± 284.3 cm), body mass index (33.6 ± 9 kg/m vs 34 ±17.7 kg/m), and comorbidities were well matched (all P > .05). Although Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wound class was used in the match, it was significantly different between groups (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1:43.4% vs 81.2%, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2:56.6% vs 18.8%; P < .001). The rate of component separation (40.1% vs 44.2%; P = .397), fascial closure (97.7% vs 98.3%; P = .738), and panniculectomy (33.5% vs 29.2%; P = .315) were similar. Mesh size was also similar (816.4 ± 555.5 vs 892.2 ± 487.8 cm; P = .112). Wound complications were equal, including wound breakdown (10.5% vs 7.5%; P = .315), wound cellulitis (5.2% vs 5.8%; P = .843), wound infection (7.5% vs 4.6%; P = .223), seroma requiring intervention (6.4% vs 7.8%; P = .597), and mesh infection (1.2% vs 0.9%; P > .999). The biologic group had an increased length of stay (6.8 ± 5.5 days vs 5.4 ± 2.3 days; P < .001) and greater hospital charges ($82,181 ± 50,356 vs $62,221 ± 26,817 USD; P < .001). Mean follow-up after biologic repair was longer (33.9 ± 36.6 months vs 23.3 ± 32.3 months; P < .001). Hernia recurrence between the biologic and synthetic groups was not significantly different (2.9% vs 1.4%; P = .313). On multivariable regression, wound complications were predictive of recurrence, and panniculectomy was predictive of wound complications.

CONCLUSION

In a 2:1 matched analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1 and 2 wounds with nearly 3-years of follow-up, biologic and synthetic mesh had similar rates of wound complications and recurrence in abdominal wall reconstruction.