American journal of surgery · 2012
The role of biologic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction: a systematic review of the current literature.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Beale Evan W, Hoxworth Ronald E, Livingston Edward H, Trussler Andrew P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Biologic mesh in the form of allograft or xenograft products have been used in complicated abdominal hernia repair, but few comparative studies exist.
METHODS: A systematic review of original incisional hernia studies was conducted to include 2 primary end points: hernia recurrence and surgical site occurrence. Analysis of variance and a Satterthwaite t test compared the devices.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included in this analysis, which included 1,257 patients. The total number of studies and the total subjects for each device include the following: Permacol (Tissue Science Laboratories, Hampshire, UK) (4/64), Surgisis (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) (3/87), and Alloderm (LifeCell, Corp, Branchburg, NJ) (23/1,106). Device-specific recurrence rates and surgical site occurrence rates, respectively, were as follows: Alloderm (20.8%, 31.4%), Permacol (10.9%, 25%), and Surgisis (8.0%, 40.2%). A Satterthwaite t test comparison revealed significantly higher numbers of hernia recurrence (P = .006) and surgical site occurrence (P = .04) when comparing Alloderm with Permacol.
CONCLUSIONS: Biologic mesh does play a beneficial role in abdominal wall reconstruction although allograft acellular dermal matrix does have a higher recurrence rate as compared with xenograft products, which limits its current role in hernia repair.
METHODS: A systematic review of original incisional hernia studies was conducted to include 2 primary end points: hernia recurrence and surgical site occurrence. Analysis of variance and a Satterthwaite t test compared the devices.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included in this analysis, which included 1,257 patients. The total number of studies and the total subjects for each device include the following: Permacol (Tissue Science Laboratories, Hampshire, UK) (4/64), Surgisis (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) (3/87), and Alloderm (LifeCell, Corp, Branchburg, NJ) (23/1,106). Device-specific recurrence rates and surgical site occurrence rates, respectively, were as follows: Alloderm (20.8%, 31.4%), Permacol (10.9%, 25%), and Surgisis (8.0%, 40.2%). A Satterthwaite t test comparison revealed significantly higher numbers of hernia recurrence (P = .006) and surgical site occurrence (P = .04) when comparing Alloderm with Permacol.
CONCLUSIONS: Biologic mesh does play a beneficial role in abdominal wall reconstruction although allograft acellular dermal matrix does have a higher recurrence rate as compared with xenograft products, which limits its current role in hernia repair.