Risk-adjusted adverse outcomes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: A case series of 140 patients.

Related Articles

Risk-adjusted adverse outcomes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair with biologic mesh: A case series of 140 patients.

Int J Surg. 2017 May 16;:

Authors: Latifi R, Samson D, Haider A, Azim A, Iftikhar H, Joseph B, Tilley E, Con J, Gashi S, El-Menyar A

Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Biologic mesh is preferred for repair of complex abdominal wall hernias (CAWHs) in patients at high risk of wound infection. We aimed to identify predictors of adverse outcomes after complex abdominal wall hernia repair (CAWR) using biologic mesh with different placement techniques and under different surgical settings.
METHODS: A retrospective case series study was conducted on all patients who underwent CAWR with biologic mesh between 2010 and 2015 at a tertiary medical center.
RESULTS: the study population included 140 patients with a mean age of 54±14 years and a median follow up period8.8 months. Mesh size ranged from 50 to 1225 cm(2). Ninety percent of patients had undergone previous surgery. Type of surgery was classified as elective in 50.7%, urgent in 24.3% and emergent in 25.0% and a porcine mesh was implanted in 82.9%. The most common mesh placement technique was underlay (70.7%), followed by onlay (16.4%) and bridge (12.9%). Complications included l wound complications (30.7%), reoperation (25.9%), hernia recurrence (20.7%), and mesh removal (10.0%). Thirty-two patients (23.0%) were admitted to the ICU and the mean hospital length of stay was 10.8 ±17.5 days. Age-sex adjusted predictors of recurrence were COPD (OR 4.2; 95%CI 1.003-17.867) and urgent surgery (OR 10.5;95%CI 1.856-59.469), whereas for reoperation, mesh size (OR 6.8;95%CI 1.344-34.495) and urgent surgery (OR 5.2;95%CI 1.353-19.723) were the predictors.
CONCLUSIONS: Using biologic mesh, one-quarter and one-fifth of CAWR patients are complicated with reoperation or recurrence, respectively. The operation settings and comorbidity may play a role in these outcomes regardless of the mesh placement techniques.

PMID: 28526657 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

http://ift.tt/2q8G4w8