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

22Citations
Citations of this article
52Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

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 cm2, 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.

References Powered by Scopus

A comparison of suture repair with mesh repair for incisional hernia

1491Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

“Components separation” method for closure of abdominal-wall defects: An anatomic and clinical study

1125Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Incisional ventral hernias: Review of the literature and recommendations regarding the grading and technique of repair

819Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

125Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Component Separation vs. Bridged Repair for Large Ventral Hernias: A Multi-Institutional Risk-Adjusted Comparison, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis

94Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Long-Term Outcomes after Abdominal Wall Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrix

64Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Richmond, B., Ubert, A., Judhan, R., King, J., Harrah, T., Dyer, B., & Thompson, S. (2014). Component separation with porcine acellular dermal reinforcement is superior to traditional bridged mesh repairs in the open repair of significant midline ventral hernia defects. American Surgeon, 80(8), 725–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/000313481408000818

Readers over time

‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘250481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 18

64%

Researcher 5

18%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

14%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 25

89%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 1

4%

Computer Science 1

4%

Chemistry 1

4%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0