Abstract

The use of biologic mesh to reinforce the abdominal wall in ventral hernia repair has been proposed as a viable alternative to synthetic mesh, particularly for high-risk patients and in contaminated settings. However, a comparison of clinical outcomes between the currently available biologic mesh types has yet to be performed.We performed a retrospective analysis of 141 patients who had undergone ventral hernia repair with biologic mesh, including noncross-linked porcine ADM (NC-PADM) (n = 51), cross-linked porcine ADM (C-PADM) (n = 17), reinforced biologic ovine rumen (RBOR) (n = 36), and bovine ADM (BADM) (n = 37) at the Stanford University Medical Center between 2002 and 2020. Postoperative donor site complications and rates of hernia recurrence were compared between patients with different biologic mesh types.Abdominal complications occurred in 47.1% of patients with NC-PADM, 52.9% of patients with C-PADM, 16.7% of patients with RBOR, and 43.2% of patients with BADM (P = 0.015). Relative risk for overall complications was higher in patients who had received NC-PADM (RR = 2.64, P = 0.0182), C-PADM (RR = 3.19, P = 0.0127), and BADM (RR = 2.11, P = 0.0773) compared with those who had received RBOR. Furthermore, relative risk for hernia recurrence was also higher in all other mesh types compared with RBOR.Our data indicate that RBOR decreases abdominal complications and recurrence rates after ventral hernia repair compared with NC-PADM, C-PADM, and BADM.

View details for DOI 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004083

View details for PubMedID 35141102

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC8820910