Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
Comparative analysis of polypropylene and dual mesh incisional hernia repair methods in open surgery following organ transplantation: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Shamsaeefar Alireza, Amiri Bahram, Nikoupour Hamed, Kazemi Kourosh, Moosavi Seyed Ali, Motazedian Nasrin, Nazari Sahar Sohrabi, Nikeghbalian Saman, Malekhosseini Seyed Ali
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Transplant patients face a risk of developing incisional hernias. Establishing a reliable and secure incisional hernia repair method for this patient population remains a challenge.
METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we gathered data from patients who had undergone liver and kidney transplantations and subsequently had developed postoperative incisional hernias. Patient follow-up was extended for a minimum of 18 months. Primary outcomes focused on recurrence, hematoma, and infection rates, comparing the complication profiles of propylene mesh and Dual Mesh incisional hernia repair methods.
RESULTS: 122 transplant patients with incisional hernias were included. The incidence of recurrence and infection after incisional hernia repair surgery was 20.6% and 5.9% for Dual Mesh and 22.2% and 9.9% for polypropylene mesh (P = 0.721 and 1.000). In liver recipients, the Dual Mesh method showed a slightly lower incidence of recurrence (17.9% vs. 23.3%) and infection (3.6% vs. 10.0%) compared to polypropylene mesh (P = 0.782, 0.423). Kidney recipients exhibited insignificant higher recurrence (33.3% vs. 19%) and infection rates (16.7% vs. 9.5%) with Dual Mesh (P = 0.588, 0.545).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that while trends indicate a lower recurrence and infection rate with Dual Mesh in liver transplant patients and a slightly higher recurrence and infection rate with Dual Mesh in kidney transplant patients, these differences were not statistically significant. Therefore, no definitive advantage of one mesh type over the other can be concluded from the data.
METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we gathered data from patients who had undergone liver and kidney transplantations and subsequently had developed postoperative incisional hernias. Patient follow-up was extended for a minimum of 18 months. Primary outcomes focused on recurrence, hematoma, and infection rates, comparing the complication profiles of propylene mesh and Dual Mesh incisional hernia repair methods.
RESULTS: 122 transplant patients with incisional hernias were included. The incidence of recurrence and infection after incisional hernia repair surgery was 20.6% and 5.9% for Dual Mesh and 22.2% and 9.9% for polypropylene mesh (P = 0.721 and 1.000). In liver recipients, the Dual Mesh method showed a slightly lower incidence of recurrence (17.9% vs. 23.3%) and infection (3.6% vs. 10.0%) compared to polypropylene mesh (P = 0.782, 0.423). Kidney recipients exhibited insignificant higher recurrence (33.3% vs. 19%) and infection rates (16.7% vs. 9.5%) with Dual Mesh (P = 0.588, 0.545).
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that while trends indicate a lower recurrence and infection rate with Dual Mesh in liver transplant patients and a slightly higher recurrence and infection rate with Dual Mesh in kidney transplant patients, these differences were not statistically significant. Therefore, no definitive advantage of one mesh type over the other can be concluded from the data.