COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Component separation with porcine acellular dermal reinforcement is superior to traditional bridged mesh repairs in the open repair of significant midline ventral hernia defects

Bryan Richmond, Adam Ubert, Rudy Judhan, Jonathan King, Tanner Harrah, Benjamin Dyer, Stephanie Thompson
American Surgeon 2014, 80 (8): 725-31
25105388
The optimal technique for complex ventral hernia repair (VHR) remains controversial. Component separation (CS) reinforced with porcine acellular dermal matrix (PADM) has shown favorable results compared with series of conventional bridged VHR, but few comparative studies exist. We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing 40 randomly selected patients who underwent CS/PADM reinforcement against an identical number of patients who underwent conventional open VHR with mesh at our institution. Patient characteristics, operative findings, outcomes, complications, reoperations, and recurrences were obtained by chart review. Fisher's exact/t test compared outcomes between the two cohorts. Statistical significance was set as P < 0.05. Mean follow-up was 33.1 months. Patient groups did not differ significantly in race (P = 1.00), age (P = 0.82), body mass index (P = 0.14), or comorbid conditions (smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity, steroid use; P values 0.60, 0.29, 0.08, and 0.56, respectively). Defect size was greater in the CS/PADM group (mean, 372.5 vs 283.7 cm(2), P = 0.01) as was the percentage Ventral Hernia Working Group Grade III/IV hernias (65.0 vs 30.0%, P = 0.03). Recurrences were lower in the CS/PADM group (13.2 vs 37.5%, P = 0.02). Mesh infection was lower in the CS/PADM group (0 vs 23% in the bridged group, P = 0.002), all of which occurred with synthetic mesh. Indications for reoperation (recurrence or complications requiring reoperation) were also lower in the CS/PADM group (17.5 vs 52.5%, P = 0.002). Superior results are achieved with CS/PADM reinforcement over traditional bridged VHR. This is evidenced by lower recurrence rates and overall complications requiring reoperation, particularly mesh infection. This is despite the greater use of CS in larger defects and contaminated hernias (VHWG Grade III and IV). CS/PADM reinforcement should be strongly considered for the repair of significant midline ventral hernia defects.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
25105388
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"