Surgical management of infected abdominal wall mesh: an analysis using the American Hernia Society Quality Collaborative.

INTRODUCTION

Several management strategies exist for the treatment of infected abdominal mesh. Using the American Hernia Society Quality Collaborative, we examined management patterns and 30-day outcomes of infected mesh removal with concomitant incisional hernia repair.

METHODS

All patients undergoing incisional hernia repair with removal of infected mesh were identified. A complete repair (CR) was defined as fascial closure with mesh; a partial repair (PR) was defined as fascial closure without mesh or no fascial closure with mesh. A two-tailed p value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 282 patients were identified: 136 patients in CR group and 146 patients in PR group. Patients had similar comorbidities but differed in wound class (class IV: 55% CR vs 83% SR, p < 0.001) and incidence of associated concomitant colorectal procedures (5% CR vs 18% SR, p = 0.015). Sublay placement was used primarily in CR (94%) compared to PR (52% inlay, 48% sublay). When comparing CR to PR, length of stay (median 6, p = 0.69), complications (40% vs 44%, p = 0.44), surgical site infections (16% vs 21%, p = 0.27), surgical site occurrence (30% vs 35%, p = 0.45), and readmission within 30 days (9% vs. 13%) were not statistically different.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of data from a multicenter hernia registry comparing CR and PR during infected mesh removal and concurrent incisional hernia repair has not identified higher rates of short-term complications between groups in the presence of infection.