American journal of surgery · 2021
Biologic mesh is non-inferior to synthetic mesh in CDC class 1 & 2 open abdominal wall reconstruction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shao Jenny M, Ayuso Sullivan A, Deerenberg Eva B, Elhage Sharbel A, Prasad Tanu, Colavita Paul D, Augenstein Vedra A, Heniford B Todd
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Biologic mesh has historically been used in contaminated abdominal wall reconstructions (AWRs). No study has compared outcomes of biologic and synthetic in clean and clean-contaminated hernia ventral hernia repair.
METHODS: A prospective AWR database identified patients undergoing open, preperitoneal AWR with biologic mesh in CDC class 1 and 2 wounds. Using propensity score matching, a matched cohort of patients with synthetic mesh was created. The objective was to assess recurrence rates and postoperative complications.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were matched in each group. Patient in the biologic group had higher rates of immunosuppression, history of transplantation, and inflammatory bowel disease (p ≤ 0.05). Operative variables were comparable for biologic vs synthetic, including defect size (230.5 ± 135.4 vs 268.7 ± 194.5 cm2, p = 0.62), but the synthetic mesh group had larger meshes placed (575.6 ± 247.0 vs 898.8 ± 246.0 cm2 p < 0.0001). Wound infections (15.5% vs 8.9%, p = 0.28) were equivalent, and recurrence rates (1.7% vs 3.4%, p = 1.00) were similar on follow up (19.3 ± 23.3 vs 23.3 ± 29.7 months, p = 0.56).
CONCLUSIONS: In matched, lower risk, complex AWR patients with large hernia defects, biologic and synthetic meshes have equal outcomes.
METHODS: A prospective AWR database identified patients undergoing open, preperitoneal AWR with biologic mesh in CDC class 1 and 2 wounds. Using propensity score matching, a matched cohort of patients with synthetic mesh was created. The objective was to assess recurrence rates and postoperative complications.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were matched in each group. Patient in the biologic group had higher rates of immunosuppression, history of transplantation, and inflammatory bowel disease (p ≤ 0.05). Operative variables were comparable for biologic vs synthetic, including defect size (230.5 ± 135.4 vs 268.7 ± 194.5 cm2, p = 0.62), but the synthetic mesh group had larger meshes placed (575.6 ± 247.0 vs 898.8 ± 246.0 cm2 p < 0.0001). Wound infections (15.5% vs 8.9%, p = 0.28) were equivalent, and recurrence rates (1.7% vs 3.4%, p = 1.00) were similar on follow up (19.3 ± 23.3 vs 23.3 ± 29.7 months, p = 0.56).
CONCLUSIONS: In matched, lower risk, complex AWR patients with large hernia defects, biologic and synthetic meshes have equal outcomes.